South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley joins Fingers Malloy and Teri Christoph to discuss women in politics, Obamacare and illegal immigration.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Posts Tagged ‘Obamacare’
CBO Says Obamacare To Cost 800,000 Jobs
Shocked! Shocked, I Tell You! By Dell Hill You heard it from Barack Obama. You heard it from Harry Reid. You heard it from Nancy Pelosi. You heard it from Joe Biden. You heard it repeated from every Democrat who … Continue reading
Union Fights to Force You into Obamacre While Getting Waivers for Itself
The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) is one of Obama’s biggest donors. Curiously enough, the SEIU is also one of the more than 700 unions and corporations that have gotten waivers from the Obama administration to get out from under some of the oppressive rules of Obamacare. Yet, even as they have been allowed to [...]
First Obamacare Waivers Now EPA Rules Waivers
The Obama Administration is quickly becoming the most corrupt administration in American history. Recently we reported about the mounting number of waivers that Obama is giving his union pals and union supporters so that they can get away from having to suffer under his Obamacare law and now the president’s jobs-killing greenhouse gas rules levied [...]
Senate’s Repeal Healthcare Vote Failure Further Makes Lie to Term ‘Conservative Democrat’
Newly minted West Virginia Senator, Democrat Joe Manchin, ran for office denigrating Obama’s take over of our national healthcare system with his Obamacare law. Tonight he and other so-called “conservative Democrats” in the Senate got a chance to prove that they were, indeed, as conservative as they claimed to be by voting to repeal Obamacare. [...]
ObamaCare Repeal Vote in the Senate Fails: 47-51 — 1099 Requirement Removed
SCROLL DOWN FOR UPDATES:
ObamaCare has been repealed in the House, a federal judge just threw out the law from the Florida district on Monday because 26 states are clogging it up in court….so the tea party has achieved maximum gridlock on national health care. That’s a good thing!
Still, REPEAL of the law is necessary, because Judge Roger Vinson’s ruling could be put on hold by an appellate court, which would allow the government to keep spending money building the bureauracy while the case winds up to the Supremes.
Numbers-wise, obviously, the GOP doesn’t have it in the Senate……unless Democrats cross over. Some of those Democrats are going to be in tight re-election campaigns so are they wobbling??
Senate Republicans put pedal to metal today. An amendment to repeal Obamacare has been cut and pasted in the Federal Aviation Administration budget. Facebook reader Jessica Singh has the text:
SA 3. Mr. JOHANNS submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill S. 223, to modernize the air traffic control system, improve the safety, reliability, and availability of transportation by air in the United States, provide modernization of the air traffic control system, reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. __X. REPEAL OF EXPANSION OF INFORMATION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.
(a) In General.–Section 9006 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the amendments made thereby, are hereby repealed; and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be applied as if such section, and amendments, had never been enacted.
(b) Rescission of Unspent Federal Funds to Offset Loss in Revenues.–
(1) IN GENERAL.–Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of all available unobligated funds, $39,000,000,000 in appropriated discretionary funds are hereby rescinded.
(2) IMPLEMENTATION.–The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall determine and identify from which appropriation accounts the rescission under paragraph (1) shall apply and the amount of such rescission that shall apply to each such account. Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall submit a report to the Secretary of the Treasury and Congress of the accounts and amounts determined and identified for rescission under the preceding sentence.
(3) EXCEPTION.–This subsection shall not apply to the unobligated funds of the Department of Defense or the Department of Veterans Affairs.
There are however, multiple things going on at many levels. Here are a few from The Hill:
Democrats will likely use a maneuver that would force the GOP to round up an impossible 60 votes to repeal the reform law, meaning that 13 Democrats would have to vote with Republicans. When asked if his entire caucus would oppose the repeal measure, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters Tuesday, “We’ll wait and see.” But Senate Democrats say they’re ready to defeat the repeal effort.
The Senate will also vote on an amendment to strike down the reform law’s unpopular IRS filing requirement. Expect that measure to have significant bipartisan support after President Obama gave his endorsement to repealing the so-called 1099 requirement.
GOP senators launch new reform law attack: Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) introduced a bill that allows states to opt out of the most important aspects of the reform law, including the individual mandate, expansion of Medicaid and employer coverage requirements. If enough states back out of the individual mandate, Graham thinks the reform law will be rendered useless and Congress would have to go back to the drawing board.
[…]
Despite the Florida ruling, health companies are pushing ahead with plans to implement the reform law, The Wall Street Journal reports.
The White House compiles comments from legal experts criticizing the Florida decision.
Lawmakers started receiving their health benefits on Tuesday, The New York Times reports.
In a move jabbing the individual mandate, Republican lawmakers in the South Dakota state legislature want to force individuals over the age of 21 to buy a gun, Raw Story reports.
The Supreme Court battle over healthcare reform may boil down to how Justice Kennedy rules, USA Today reports.
GOP presidential candidates hailed the Florida ruling, the Associated Press reports.
New York’s governor proposed nearly $1 billion in Medicaid cuts, CNN Money reports.
[…]
Healthcare reform supporters have begun to seek alternatives to the unpopular individual mandate.
The Florida ruling boosts Arizona’s case for a Medicaid waiver, Gov. Jan Brewer (R) argues.
UPDATE: February 2, 2011:
Vote to repeal entire Obama Care: 47-51 along party lines. It’s okay. Keep passing it and keep voting it EACH MONTH. Keep the Democratic Senators on the record about this. This is a LOSER for some of them.
Here’s a good news summary from Kaiser:
Senate Republicans failed to muster enough votes to repeal the health law. But a vote to delete a small, revenue-raising provision of the sweeping law did pass, in a bipartisan vote.
The Hill: “The Senate on Wednesday voted down a repeal of President Obama’s healthcare law in a 47-51 party-line vote. … Republicans have vowed to carry the fight forward, saying they will seek to de-fund the law as it is implemented. The GOP also has promised Wednesday’s repeal vote will not be the last in this Congress” (Pecquet, 2/2).
The Associated Press: “Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said the vote marked an opportunity for Democrats who voted for the bill last year ‘to listen to those who have desperately been trying to get your attention. To say, yes, maybe my vote for this bill was a mistake, and that we can do better,’ McConnell said. … Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the Republican repeal movement would ‘take away a child’s right to get health insurance and instead give insurance companies the right to use asthma or diabetes as an excuse to take away that care’” (Espo, 2/2).
KHN has video excerpts of the debate (2/2).
Reuters: The Senate voted on the measure “just two days after a federal judge struck down the year-old law as unconstitutional, a ruling that the Obama administration promptly announced it would appeal. The Republican-led House of Representatives, in keeping a campaign vow, voted to repeal the healthcare law last month. Senate rejection of repeal means the embattled law’s fate will be decided by court challenges and eventually the U.S. Supreme Court, a process that could extend into next year” (Smith and Ferraro, 2/2).
The Washington Post: “Wednesday’s amendments are the first in the Senate dealing with health care reform, but they likely won’t be the last. South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, who on Tuesday introduced legislation with Sen. John Barasso (R-Wyo.) that would allow states to opt out of provisions of the health care law, has signaled that Republicans may offer more health-care-related amendments. … Earlier Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee held its first-ever hearing on the constitutionality of the health-care overhaul” (Sonmez, 2/2).
The Hill: “On their first try, Senators easily approved on Wednesday an amendment the Federal Aviation Administration reauthorization legislation to repeal the onerous 1099 provision included in the healthcare law. The Senate approved, on a 81-17 vote, a motion to waive the point of order against the amendment offered by Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) to eliminate the requirement that businesses must file the forms with the IRS for purchases of $600 or more” (Needham, 2/2).
Update: Warner Todd Huston says so-called “Blue Dog” or conservative Democrats who campaigned AGAINST Obamacare voted FOR it….the GOP had NO defectors:
[Minority Sen. Mitch] McConnell (R- Ky.) did not likely expect his measure to pass, to be sure. His aim was meant at the very least to put everyone in the Senate on record as to where they stood on Obamacare. This isn’t the last word on the debate, either, as Republican Senator John Cornyn (Texas) vowed that this fight was not nearly over.
Within minutes after the vote, on the GOP’s Senate Twitter feed, Cornyn talked of the battle to come. “These are the first steps in a long road that will culminate in 2012 where we will continue to expose the flaws in this bill,” he said.
Mitch McConnell agreed posting, “We think this is just the beginning. This issue is still ahead of us. We will go back at it in a variety of ways.”
This vote proves several things. It proves that despite two years of millions of Americans voicing their disgust of Obamacare and despite the worst drubbing in an election for decades, the Democrats intend to die on the Obamacare hill. With every single Democrat voting against the repeal measure we now see that the Democrats are standing foursquare behind this socialist-like healthcare policy.
This vote also shows that there is no such thing as a “moderate” or a “conservative” Democrat. They may run for election pretending at being a center left politician, like Joe Manchin did, but they will vote like a hard-left, Europeanesque social democrat once in office. This vote once again proves that there is no such thing as a Blue Dog or moderate Democrat.
Romney: Nope, I’m NOT Apologizing for Romneycare!
After all these years in politics, Mitt Romney has finally found something he isn’t going to flip flop on — so far, anyway. Romney recently started a tour to kick off the release of his latest book and when asked if he was sorry he ever signed his name on the Massachusetts healthcare law derided [...]
Senate Republicans Call for Vote on a Repeal of Obamacare for Wednesday
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY) announced on Tuesday that he intends to bring to the floor a vote to repeal Obamacare on Wednesday. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid certainly does not want this vote to occur but even so it is highly doubtful that McConnell can get the 60 votes needed to sustain [...]
What the Ruling to Overturn ObamaCare Means
George Scoville of the CATO Institute sends along these reviews of yesterday’s watershed ruling by U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson in Pensacola, Florida to overturn the ObamaCare law.
[(see the judge’s 78 page ruling here.) (see previous story on UNCOVERAGE.net)
Here are excerpts and links to legal commentary from: Vice President for legal affairs Roger Pilon, senior fellow in Constitutional studies Ilya Shapiro, and director of health policy studies Michael F. Cannon:
The core of the opinion, as many of us have long argued, is whether Congress, under its power to regulate interstate commerce, can regulate “inactivity” by requiring individuals to buy health insurance or be fined. It cannot, Vinson ruled, citing a long line of opinions, legal and political, starting with James Madison, the principal author of the Constitution.
Moreover, because Obamacare contains no severability clause, the entire act must fall. Finally, because this is a declaratory judgment, further implementation of the act is enjoined, so a separate injunction is not needed. It’s a new day.
Health Care Ruling a Victory for Federalism and Individual Liberty (Shapiro)
Like Judge Hudson in the Virginia case, Judge Vinson recognized that the individual mandate represents an unprecedented and improper incursion beyond those powers: the federal government, under the guise of regulating commerce, cannot require that people engage in economic activity…. And so today’s ruling, in a lawsuit that now has 26 states as plaintiffs — with two others challenging the health care “reform” separately — represents the latest and most significant victory for federalism and individual liberty. This will not end until the Supreme Court has its say, but the tide is clearly running in freedom’s favor.
Florida Ruling Requires Government to Stop Implementing Obamacare (Shapiro)
In short, if I read the opinion (plus this final judgment) correctly — quite apart from both the lofty philosophical principles I applaud Judge Vinson for adopting and the nitty-gritty technical details of his individual mandate analysis — Obamacare is dead in its tracks. Now, Judge Vinson himself or the Eleventh Circuit (or even the Supreme Court) may issue an emergency stay of this or any other part of the ruling, but as of right now, the federal government must stop implementing Obamacare.
…it appears that the Obama administration must seek intervention from a higher court if it wants to keep implementing ObamaCare. Even though Vinson declined to issue an injunction forbidding the administration to implement the law, he did so because of:
a long-standing presumption “that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction”…”declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction”…Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary.
In other words, absent intervention from a higher court, HHS must now sit on its hands.
Judge Vinson’s Greatest Hits (Shapiro)
No higher courts are bound but they are influenced. Judges, like anyone else, don’t want to reinvent the wheel where they don’t have to. So the circuit courts and even the Supremes will say all this in their own words but don’t for a second think they ain’t payin’ attention. I can’t cite you statistics about justices being influenced by district (or even circuit) court opinions, but it would be laughable to think that the outcome before the Court would be the same regardless of how the decisions on the merits before several thoughtful district judges went.
This last piece has several excerpts of the 78-page opinion that Ilya has picked out to analyze, and what their implications will be in policy.
Obama Gives Obamacare Waivers to 28 Unions, His BIG Donors
More on the waivers for Obamacare. A look at the president’s waiver list reveals he’s given waivers to 28 food workers union locals so that they can get out from under the oppressive, budget busting requirements in his take over of our nation’s medical system. Curiously enough, the PAC for those unions gave Obama $673,309 [...]
Judge Overturns ObamaCare “Reluctantly” with Obama’s Own Campaign Promise
The federal judge who has “thrown out” the national health care law as unconstitutional YES, is a Republican Ronald Reagan appointee, but he made his decision to negate the entire ObamaCare law partially on the basis of President Obama’s OWN WORDS. More than that, the judge expressed his REGRET that he had to rule so [...]
Judge’s “Reluctant” Ruling Overturning ObamaCare Quotes Obama
Florida federal judge Roger Vinson
By Jane Jamison
The federal judge who has “thrown out” the national health care law as unconstitutional YES, is a Republican Ronald Reagan appointee, but he made his decision to negate the entire ObamaCare law partially on the basis of President Obama’s OWN WORDS. More than that, the judge expressed his REGRET that he had to rule so broadly, because he agrees that health care reform is needed.
The liberal and “mainstream” media are trying to portray Florida federal judge Roger Vinson who has overturned the Obamacare as unconstitutional as an “extremist” and judicial activist. They are rightly worried because Judge Vinson has found that the portion he has ruled unconstitutional cannot be “severed” from the rest of the law. This means the entire law is voided by the ruling.
(see the judge’s 78 page ruling here.) (see previous story on UNCOVERAGE.net)
Barack Obama “the candidate” campaigned against mandatory coverage
While campaigning for president, Barack Obama said more than once that a national health insurance law should should not require citizens to purchase health insurance. Yet, that is exactly what became part of the eventual law: Americans must purchase health insurance, or they will be fined under Obamacare.
This is what the judge found unconstitutional. In so doing, Judge Vinson remembered “candidate” Obama’s discussions about national health care:
Footnote 30 page 76, ruling by Judge Roger Vinson:
On this point, it should be emphasized that while the individual mandate was clearly “necessary and essential” to the Act as drafted, it is not “necessary and essential” to health care reform in general. It is undisputed that there are various other (Constitutional) ways to accomplish what Congress wanted to do. Indeed, I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that “if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house.”
In fact, he pointed to the similar individual mandate in Massachusetts — which was imposed under the state’s police power, a power the federal government does not have — and opined that the mandate there left some residents “worse off” than they had been before.
See Christopher Lee, Simple Question Defines Complex Health Debate, Washington Post, Feb. 24, 2008, at A10:
(quoting Senator Obama as saying: “In some cases, there are people [in Massachusetts] who are paying fines and still can’t afford[health insurance], so now they’re worse off than they were . . . They don’t have health insurance, and they’re paying a fine . . .”).
Here’s the exact quote from Barack Obama in the CNN show:
“Here in Massachusetts, the state where I’m broadcasting from, they have a mandate, but they’ve had to exempt 20% of the uninsured because those folks still can’t afford it. And you’ve got some people who are not paying fines but also still don’t have health insurance. And that’s what I don’t want to do. I don’t want to put people in a position where they can’t afford it but they’re not getting fined by the government, or as Senator Clinton put it, they’re having it taken out of their paychecks.”
Judge regrets having to rule against national health insurance
If Judge Vinson is such a radical Republican activist judge as the liberal media would have us believe, why is he so SORRY about having to rule so broadly to wipe out the national health insurance law? This does not sound like an “activist,” this sounds like a jurist who is reluctantly following the law and the U.S. constitution:
Page 76:
For the reasons stated, I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.
Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and Iam aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there isvirtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, itis hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled “The Patient Protection andAffordable Care Act.”
The judge notes that Americans could be ordered to eat broccoli if the law is allowed to stand.
Ummmmm, if ObamaCare is so great, why doesn’t everyone want it?
As noted by Dr. Milton Wolf in the Washington Times, and documented here in the list of Obamacare “waivers,” the most hypocritical detail about Obamacare is the fact that the Obama administration is protecting its friends from having to use it.
If it is such a great national health care law, why aren’t the Congress members and their staffs, the big labor unions, and all of Obama’s donor companies wanting to subscribe to it? All legal arguments aside, the liberals can gnash their teeth as much as they want about this judge’s ruling, but they don’t answer that question.
Federal Judge Strikes Down ALL of ObamaCare — Will Obama Comply?
Update: 5:35 p.m. [PST]:
What liberals are saying…..waaaaaaaaaaaaa!
The Extreme Activism Of Judge Vinson
Florida Judge Voids Entire Health Care Law
Judicial Activism and the Affordable Care Act
Update 3:42 p.m. [PST]:
Syndicated talk show host Mark Levin, who is a constitutional lawyer, says the Department of Health and Human services must cease and desist from enforcing ObamaCare per this ruling. If the administration does NOT comply, he says attorneys should go back to Judge Vinson to initiate a contempt of court ruling. As you recall, the Obama administration refused to comply with the order of a federal judge in New Orleans to repeal the ban on offshore drilling. The administration simply “re-wrote” the ban’s language to make it a different rule from the one that was taken to court. The administration cannot re-write the 2,000 page ++ Obamacare so quickly.
also: Ace of Spades
This is huge. A federal judge in Florida has thrown out the ENTIRE ObamaCare law. Will the lawless Obama administration follow the court’s ruling and the rule of law? This is a test of our checks and balances. What will we the people do if our president will not follow the court’s ruling?
Florida Judge Roger Vinson has ruled that the ObamaCare law is unconstitutional because it demands that individuals must buy insurance or be fined.
What is wrongly being reported on some networks [ABC News Radio, 2:00 p.m. PST] is that part of the federal law for health insurance is still valid under this ruling. It is not.
Professor William Jacobson has been updating his review of the ruling on his website: Legal Insurrection.
I suggest you check his link for all of his analysis and more updates. Money quotes :
Judge Vinson first found that the mandate was unconstitutional, and then found that the mandate could not be severed from the rest of the law, requiring that the entire law be deemed unconstitutional.
Judge Vinson found that there was no need for an injunction, since the declaratory judgment that the entire law was invalid was sufficient. In effect, there is nothing left to enjoin, since no part of the law survived. By contrast, in the ruling in Virginia last year invalidating the mandate, the Judge severed the mandate from the rest of the law (but denied an injunction preventing the rest of the law from taking effect).
Here is the key language from the Order showing that Judge Vinson expects the federal government to obey the declaration that the law is unenforceable in its entirety:
“…there is a long-standing presumption “that officials of the Executive Branch will adhere to the law as declared by the court. As a result, the declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction.” See Comm. on Judiciary of U.S. House of Representatives v. Miers, 542 F.3d 909, 911 (D.C. Cir. 2008); accord Sanchez-Espinoza v. Reagan, 770 F.2d 202, 208 n.8 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (“declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction . . . since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declared by the court”) (Scalia, J.) (emphasis added).
There is no reason to conclude that this presumption should not apply here. Thus, the award of declaratory relief is adequate and separate injunctive relief is not necessary.”
In this sense, this decision is far more sweeping than the Virginia case, and presents a greater problem for the Obama administration which arguably does not have authority to implement any aspect of Obamacare.
Here is the conclusion of the Order (emphasis mine):
“The existing problems in our national health care system are recognized by everyone in this case. There is widespread sentiment for positive improvements that will reduce costs, improve the quality of care, and expand availability in a way that the nation can afford. This is obviously a very difficult task. Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the Act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution. Again, this case is not about whether the Act is wise or unwise legislation. It is about the Constitutional role of the federal government.
For the reasons stated, I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.
Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications. At a time when there is virtually unanimous agreement that health care reform is needed in this country, it is hard to invalidate and strike down a statute titled “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” …
In closing, I will simply observe, once again, that my conclusion in this case is based on an application of the Commerce Clause law as it exists pursuant to the Supreme Court’s current interpretation and definition. Only the Supreme Court (or a Constitutional amendment) can expand that.
For all the reasons stated above and pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 80) is hereby GRANTED as to its request for declaratory relief on Count I of the Second Amended Complaint, and DENIED as to its request for injunctive relief; and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment (doc. 82) is hereby GRANTED on Count IV of the Second Amended Complaint. The respective cross-motions are each DENIED.
In accordance with Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2201(a), a Declaratory Judgment shall be entered separately, declaring “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” unconstitutional.”
Remember: Obamacare is Great… Well Unless You Are a Union, Then You Don’t Have to Suffer Under it
If you’ll recall, Big Labor was one of the biggest cheerleaders for Obamacare. Big Labor was insistent that Obama’s take over of our nation’s healthcare was the best thing since sliced bread, to be sure. But once Obamacare got passed into law, we’ve learned that dozens of unions have sought exemptions to get out from [...]
ObamaCare for Thee But Not for Me: 733 Waivers from National Health Care
If you are “special” you get a waiver. If not, you are paying for everyone else and waiting at the end of the line for health care. 733 waivers have been granted, many of them labor unions which supported Barack Obama for president.
26 states are now involved in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a national policy which forces its residents to buy health insurance.
9 states, including California, are siding with the U.S. government.
Americans for Tax Reform has an updated list [ HERE ] of all the new taxes hidden within the national health care reform law.
“ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT SOME ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS”