Category: Health Care Reform


Source: WSJ

A federal judge has ruled that — as claimed by the state of Virginia — the new health-care overhaul law violates the Constitution when it requires most adults to purchase health insurance.

However, the judge said the ruling applies only to the individual mandate and provisions that hinge on it, not the law in its entirety. Nor would he grant an injunction that would immediately suspend the law or the individual mandate.

Here’s the ruling itself. Here’s the WSJ story on the decision. And here’s how the WSJ Law Blog broke down the judge’s ruling.

In a blog post, the White House said it disagreed with the ruling and that the Department of Justice is considering its appeal options.

The individual mandate is one of the law’s most unpopular provisions. But a post-election poll by the Kaiser Family Foundation found that even among the 49% who want all or part of the health law repealed, a majority wants to hang onto the provision that guarantees insurance regardless of health status. Proponents of the mandate say it’s hard to figure out how to have universal coverage without a mandate that everyone be insured.

The White House has been pointing towards court victories of its own. Most were procedural, but a few were on the merits. Still, the end game for all of this is likely a hearing before the Supreme Court. The WSJ quotes an administration official as saying that “we are confident that this law is constitutional, and we are confident that the Supreme Court when, and if, it hears this case will agree that it’s constitutional.”

Continue Reading…

Advertisements

Source: USA Today
The Associated Press reports that a California man was arrested for allegedly making threatening phone calls to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
The AP based its report on sources. USA TODAY’s Matt Kelley is checking into it.
The AP said:

Several federal officials say the man made dozens of calls to Pelosi’s homes in California and Washington, as well as to her husband’s business office, reciting her home address and saying if she wanted to see it again, she would not support the health care overhaul bill that was recently enacted. 

If confirmed, it would be the third time since the health care bill passed that someone has been arrested for threatening a member of Congress. As USA TODAY’s Kathy Kiely wrote in today’s paper, a 63-year-old man was arrested for allegedly calling and leaving numerous death threats at the office of Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. Last week, the FBI arrested a man who allegedly threatened the life of Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor, the No. 2 House Republican.
More information to come as we get it.
Updated at 5:30 p.m. ET. USA TODAY’s Kevin Johnson confirms that an arrest was made in the Pelosi case. He writes:

U.S. Capitol Police spokeswoman Kimberly Schneider confirmed the arrest, saying the investigation and arrest was a “coordinated effort” between the FBI and Capitol Police. 

Updated at 5:43 p.m. ET. From Matt Kelley:

Pelosi has been the subject of threats before. In 2006, authorities arrested a Los Angeles man after he mailed envelopes filled with white powder and threatening messages to Pelosi and other political and entertainment figures. The powder turned out to be harmless. Chad Conrad Castagana was convicted in 2008 and sentenced to five years’ probation.

Updated at 6:42 p.m. ET. San Francisco FBI spokeswoman Patti Hansen identified the suspect as Gregory Guisti, 48. He was arrested without incident in San Francisco at 12:15 p.m., and he is scheduled to make his initial court appearance at 9:30 a.m. Thursday, Hansen said. She declined to elaborate on the allegations against Guisti.

According to a recent Rasmussen Poll 53% of Americans disapproved the Health Care Bill and yet here we have it.

CNN’s Research Opinion Poll has the number as high as 59%.

If the majority of Americans disapproved of this bill and the Democratic majority still passed the it, who’s interest are they really serving?

As Obama stands in front of the camera’s smiling championing his victory his approval rating is falling out of orbit, down to 43%.

Now maybe I fell asleep in government class but I was under the impression that in a Democracy the elected officials served the will of the people.

As I watch the all the commentators on MSM go back and forth with politicians on both sides I see two issues getting fused together in order to support this bill:

1. This bill provides Health Care to 32 million Americans.

2. It provides legal boundaries that the insurance companies can’t go outside of.

Ok, to me both of these are reasonable and they do help people, no doubt about it. However, the thing I think most supporters don’t look at is the mandate. Why not let individual people opt? If you need it or want it good, go get it. But for those who don’t want it shouldn’t they be allowed to opt out? Isn’t this apart of the freedom that makes America, well…America? Isn’t this apart of that freedom we go all over the globe to protect and establish, topple governments to enforce, over throw dictators to establish?

How can we go anywhere in the world and tell people we’re fighting for freedom and democracy when we the majority at home yell a big collective, “NO” and the government still says “yes”.

Let me start of by saying that I am not opposed to making health care available to more people or people who could not afford it otherwise.

However, I am against a mandate that says you will purchase a product. If the Dems want to make health care more available, more accessible, more cheaper, great! I’m all for it. I agree and applaud with not allowing insurance companies to drop people when they need coverage the most or denying people because they have preexisting conditions. I agree with allowing college students to stay on their parent insurance until they are 26.

What I don’t agree with is a mandate to buy, the sleazy way Congress slid the bill through, or the way the bill will operate.

Instead of placing extra burdens on tax payers (who may or may not be employed)and businesses at a time when the economy is struggling to get out of a depression, they could have opted to regulate the insurance industry in the same way they regulate other public utilities.

Then there is the IRS aspect of the bill. So now, you’ll have to include your health care coverage with your tax forms ever January. According to the Washington Examiner:

The Democrats’ plan would require all Americans to have “acceptable” insurance coverage (the legislation includes long and complex definitions of “acceptable”) and would designate the IRS as the agency charged with enforcing that requirement. On your yearly 1040 tax return, you would be required to attest that you have “acceptable” coverage. Of course, you might be lying, or simply confused about whether or not you are covered, so the IRS would need a way to check your claim for accuracy. Under current plans, insurers would be required to submit to the IRS something like the 1099 form in which taxpayers report outside income. The IRS would then check the information it receives from the insurers against what you have submitted on your tax form.

If it all matches up, you’re fine. If it doesn’t, you will hear from the IRS. And if you don’t have “acceptable” coverage, you will be subject to substantial fines — fines that will be administered by the IRS.

Looking at this article something else comes to mind. Who’s to say that the fines for not having “acceptable” insurance won’t be $1000, $2000, or $5000 in the next 5 to 10 years?

On top of that you have companies like Walgreens who are refusing to accept any new Medicaid prescriptions because they’re losing money. Doctors are Medicare patients or raising patient fees because of the cuts to Medicare to fund this new health care bill.

If the states Attorney Generals fail at their constitutionality challenge to this bill and the GOP can’t get it repealed in November, then boys and girls we have officially crossed that plane into European style Socialism.

%d bloggers like this: