Up to 80 million may lose healthcare coverage beginning January 14th, 2014

Up to 80 million may lose healthcare coverage beginning January 14th, 2014

Up to 80 million or roughly 55 percent of all Americans may lose their current healthcare coverage beginning January 14th, 2014.

You have heard this following statement dozens of times from president Obama, “If you like your plan you can keep it!”  As this lie was being spewed  reports are now surfacing, based on cost projections from 2009 that the president was aware of this deception even as he spoke of it and lied to millions who looked to him for reliable information.

There are approximately 157 million working insured in this country of that 16 million are receiving an individual insurance plan and are seeing some plan premiums increase by up to 150 percent and as little as 50 percent. The majority currently covered under an employer mandate which relies on corporations to share the cost burden while spreading the healthcare risk across a large base will see their healthcare plans cancelled in the coming weeks.

The Affordable Healthcare Act, or Obamacare was slated and understood from the beginning to be “free” healthcare or reduced priced healthcare and a great plan with many benefits, enough to take care of all your needs. The plan as we were told does not exist it rolls out and the many costly intricacies within are being revealed.

Instead of the picture perfect plan being painted in the beginning we now see it as it really is. The burden of cost is being shifted to the young people in recent months who are expected to be “healthy” and not a large consumer of a healthcare product to bare the greatest portion of this cost for the rest of us. This has been a huge surprise to this block of consumers, many of which voted for Obama looking for positive hope and change.

What Obama and his cronies didn’t expect or perhaps they did, that is debatable, is they didn’t expect the health registry  website to not work, young people to not buy this insurance opting to pay penalties instead of coverage, americans demanding answers and the insurance companies pulling out the way they are doing.

The private insurers pulling out in droves is  leaving the healthcare system and our economy in jeopardy and at an extreme risk of collapse or at the very least vulnerable and chaotic.

As many as 76 percent of small businesses, 55 percent of large businesses and 63 percent of all businesses are expected to cancel coverage come January 14th! 

This will leave many with the option to either buy mandated coverage from the government that is substandard, expensive and unwanted with many products that are not wanted or needed, keep and re-register with your current adjusted plan and pay inflated premiums or opt out all together and pay a fine at the end of the year saving 10s of thousands in premiums that are placing huge burdens on middle income families, quite frankly most families.

The NY Times this week, eluded to Obamacare as no more than a redistribution of wealth, a huge step toward Socialism. The shift of costs across the spectrum of households, insurance companies backing away from coverage, inflated premiums and expensive, expansive and sub par government coverage is driving all these factors and indeed spreading the wealth or cost burden across the spectrum affecting 10s of millions of Americans in their pocketbooks, tightening their family budgets. This is causing many to panic as they see their incomes diminish and net worth and expendable income whither away at a time when most will not survive with many more insults to their incomes.

Some are beginning to question if all this confusion is purposeful! Is all this burden and added debt a well thought out plan. If you believe the Cloward-Piven strategy, of which Obama is a student and was indoctrinated from an early age with, then you will fully understand that by overwhelming and bombarding the system, it will collapse leaving most totally dependent on the government for every need. This socialism perfected folks and it is no secret this may be the presidents intent and if so he is actively and cleverly making this a reality.

The debate is still out there and it’s seeing day light as the presidents obvious attempts to socialize our country is underway and being revealed.

There are many things that need to change. Private insurance costs are way too high, there is great fraud, waste and duplication inside our current system, that is a given and should be fixed. This does not call for another plan, it just needs to be changed with less a focus on profit for large insurance companies.

Americans losing their individual and work related insurance plans are being blamed on the basis that your current  insurance plans do not meet Obamacare guidelines. I’m not so sure this is the only reason but the private insurance plans could make easy tweaks to your plans to make them compliant to Obamacare guidelines. They could do this, but currently their is no incentive to do so. What I believe is really going on is the large insurance companies are now considering the costs and are figuring out that Obamacare and the decisions the president is making is cutting into their bottom lines, greed and wealth are now driving healthcare decisions and that’s where you the consumer are being left out in the cold.

What I don’t agree with and I have personally challenged the Constitutionality of Obamacare  as it relates to the individual mandate and the commerce clause is that the government and their mandated tax is not the answer to our current healthcare woes.

The events unfolding this morning till January 14th, 2014 give me great angst and uncertainty for the vast majority of Americans and makes me doubt we as a nation, a band of families, united in our pursuit of happiness and a quality of life unlike most of the world will survive this impingement on our budgets and our national form of healthcare.

Hopefully Americans will wake up to
this reality, and they are, and starting to realize these purposeful cancellations of your health plans are purposeful,  intentional, and very well planned and will demand change at mid term elections in 2014 and make the needed changes to create the needed changes.

A parting shot at this healthcare debacle and I’ll close this debate. Personally, I have about 35 years of healthcare experience, have seen many changes, witnessed loads of duplication and perhaps fraud, worked at many levels inside the provider beast and I have never been asked what could be done to fix the problems with healthcare nor do I knowingly know of anyone that has ever been asked to solve our healthcare issues or at least ask my opinion of how it may be made better. This scenario really perplexes me and if any of my readers read this that could influence the healthcare debate may learn from this omission.

Sources of info:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/11/26/evidence-shows-obama-administration-predicted-tens-millions-would-lose-plans/

http://m.weeklystandard.com/blogs/millions-americans-are-losing-their-health-plans-because-obamacare_764602.html

Death panels exist and are essential to the success of OBAMACARE

Death Panels do exist and will exist as long as Obamacare is allowed to exist! It is almost comical at the amount of people who are lining up behind Obama and shouting that death panels do not exist. The “number 1 lie of all time” I read in one article recently. Of course, you know this is a tactic to get you to believe them.

They, whomever they are, do not want you to grasp the fact that our own federal government has the capability to ration care, make life or death decisions based on whether it is finically responsible. Surely this would surely fire up the constituency and lead to millions that would stand at the steps of the US Capitol and demand changes to the plan or at the very least repeal it! Right?

Easily dismissing something as huge as our government enforcing a healthcare bill that puts American lives in jeopardy is the easy way out. Its an inner protection mechanism that makes us sleep better at night. Sort of like if I just believe that monster under my bed is not there, then it must not be there. I simply ask of you that if you are going to be so quick to judgement and so bold to dispel a fact at least have the cahunas to provide substantiating proof of why you are denying it. Far more often than not people will roadblock an idea based soley on the fact the person shouting the loudest believes only that there is “no way that can be true” instead of researching themselves and coming up with an informed conclusion. In this setting, simply going with your gut is not the end all tell all.

I have personally taken the time here in this blog to provide information that I knew was true because I have read alot of the plans, have watched the votes and have researched the data. The death panels, use another name if that makes you feel more comfortable, but in some form or another they do and will exist just as they have in some form or another for years. Now that mandatory healthcare is a priority in this country and the president has given this panel of 15 bureaucrats unlimited powers, we will see rationing and death panels as we have never seen them.

Death panel or allocation specialists have been buried in and out of 1000s of pages and in different proposals for several years. People are in your healthcare facilities right now evaluating who need optimization of a payment or who needs to not have that procedure that may prolong life. Death panels are in every social medicine scheme and are even in presidential hopeful Romneys state health care plan in his home state. Some have failed and some entered the plan in a fractured state but were submitted regardless. Several amendments and proposals have made it in or have been removed by legislation because of public outcry and demand for change. They are essential to the bottom line of OBAMACARE and will eventually be a reality by whatever name you choose to place on it!

As a healthcare worker I am intimately involved in day to day rationing and as a lead plaintiff in the Obamacare Class Action Lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of Obamacare focusing on the Commerce Clause, particularly the case of Wickard v Filburn I feel an obligation to be versed on the subject and make conclusions based on fact.

With nearly 30 years of healthcare experience under my belt and a direct observation of the inner workings of a healthcare machine while it is running, I as many others see this upcoming dilemma very clearly and first hand. The many changes I have seen over the years both good and bad does not surprise me. The bottom line healthcare is a business and for a business to survive the healthcare industry must make money. Making money means practicing within certain guidelines, withholding or redirecting care to the most cost efficient form of delivery and maximizing profit regardless of who may or may not get the needed services to prolong or shorten their lives.

Many want the appearance that it is all about the care and the quality of that care, but really it is about the money. Every person that presents to the churning machine and gets inside with a qualifying illness is facing the brutal honest truth and that is we as healthcare professionals have one goal, to get you in and out with as much left over profit as possible. During your visit you will observe a fragile balancing game between CEOs and providers of that care each battling over their vantage points of quality Vs quantity. The end game still is we must make money and to make money we must conserve or ration as much care a possible without harm to the patient in the least costly manner. The patient is mostly unaware of this wrangling behind the scenes but the almighty dollar and the bureaucrats behind the scenes are lurking and pushing providers with “friendly” visits to their lounges and in dimly lit hallways are more than willing to discuss the plan to get the patient out on the other side with as much economic viability as possible when care is completed.

We have always in healthcare had some type of restrictions on how much and what kind of care is delivered and the cost of providing that service. It is no secret that Doctors are perhaps not ordering a test because they know that the hospital wll not get paid for that service or will God forbid plunge the care facility into a negative balance while forcing the provider to provide an alternate therapy, one that is less costly to the care facility, especially if the patient is indigent or with no insurance. In America, we are blessed with technology advances that may prolong our lives but I am afraid that with OBAMACARE that technology may not reach us because te likes if death panels will redirect less costly procedures or tests in another direction because of the associated cost. Do I believe many will die because of the decisions of a bureaucrat in DC pulling the strings of our healthcare system? You bet they will and in great numbers!

Fear of litigation or a genuine compassion usually weighs heavy in the minds of some care givers and they will order the expensive test anyway resulting in a slap on the wrist by some cost driven administrator only looking at his bottom line when a caregiver dares step outside the decision making grid.

With the advent of Managed Care in the last few years we have seen even greater changes and have seen people that just a few years ago may have received the better more diagnostic test to effectively and efficiently render an accurate diagnosis, now being shifted to less costly, less invasive procedures.

So when I hear that a government panel will now be making decisions on your care and the result of that care it does not surprise me one bit. We have been doing it in some form for years. A healthcare facility must make money to survive period! It is a huge multi trillion dollar industry. They have to and must make money, so why does it surprise you when you hear that our government that has decided to get into the healthcare business must ration your care or at the end of your life direct you toward a less costly end and use a death panel to do it?

Granny’s has had end of life prolongation discussions at the foot of her bed for years by nurses, care providers, case managers, utilization review specialist and Physicians concerned about moving forward cautiously would be in the best interest of the hospital, family and the providers.

Many factors weigh in the decision making process but essentially it boils down to does granny go to heaven today or does she go a week from now using more resources? Does granny eat up valuable resources that could be used on someone else half her age in another setting? If granny is laying there and she has exhausted many resources from a stingy Medicare repayment program the decision in most cases ends with the family deciding to let go. This is the desired ending. The dilemma occurs when family or provider wants to apply the full court press and hopefully see granny healthy once again. This causes many “alerts” to go off at many levels and causes concern for vested parties that are seeing her profitability melt away and granny laying there as a liability. This is where the patient gets alot of attention and many begin the process of trying to minimize a disastrous extended stay with no future earning potential. Granny is now a number. She is marked as an outlier with an exhausted or bursting at the seams DRG payment structure that will fall short of what is needed to make granny a profitable entity. It is a necessary evil, the bottom line has to matter or you don’t float. When the eventual money is plopped down on granny, the care facility must make a decision at this time to either hasten grannies departure or eat the cost hoping for only a big tax incentive at years end. This is a tough business and when the thought of someone rationing care at the end of a persons life seems unspeakable but It is happening daily even as I speak. Ask any provider this is probably one of the toughest times in their careers. I know it is in mine. I gave gone home and had many sleepless nights as this life and death battle unfolded in front of me during a long shift.

The struggle has been going on for a long time, the struggle with me is to see it done so casually by our federal government that should not be laying a hand on us period let alone making life and death decisions based on whether my illness provides you a profit! The result is a nice clean job with everyone happy and unaware that the government, provider or insurance company has profited off of your misfortune. No ones hands are dirty and the deed is done, everyone is satisfied and granny is better off and unaware of the balancing act that surrounds her. Does it now surprise me that the government has decided to apply these same methods to their own mandate? Not at all!

In light of what is happening already, why is it such a big shocker that Obama has placed it in his healthcare plan moving forward. Exactly, now the government is doing it to us directly and taking all the delicate caring intricacies that are visible at the beside and replacing it with a panel of 15 getting paid 165,000 dollars a year to make end of life decisions. Regardless of what the end product of death panels makes it past our legislators, remember there will always be those people somewhere in the shadows of a dying patient making those crucial decisions that will affect their bottom line, it is just harder for me to swallow when it is the federal governments presence at the bedside of a dying patient.

It seems the word death panel makes us uneasy, let’s use the term rationed care or granny’s had enough care or why are we still beating a dead horse care! I like that one the best!

Think about it people. The way OBAMA and our government to fully make this massive multi trillion dollar plan work there has to be some major corners cut somewhere. With no lifetime caps on care, exclusions for pre-existing illnesses, 32 million new people in the system that were previously uninsured, perhaps 28 million new immigrants, millions of people with the vision of sugar plums in their heads and saying “I have free insurance now, let’s go to the hospital” there will little money if any left over at the end of the day.

The end conclusion will be someone is going to have to ration care and make some tough decisions and it want be the patient, their family or the provider. It will be an independent board of 15 government appointees and paid bureaucrats with more power with decision making capabilities than Congress. Yes, we are definitely talking about a “death panel or as you prefer a stop beating a dead horse panel to control the massive influx of needed care and that leads me to the next point, the death panel that supposedly doesn’t exist!

I am specifically talking about IPAB! (Note source of info for this definition) The Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, is a fifteen-member United States Government agency created in 2010 by sections 3403 and 10320 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (OBAMACARE) which has the explicit task of achieving specified savings in Medicare without affecting coverage or quality.[1] Under previous and current law, changes to Medicare payment rates and program rules are recommended by MedPAC but require an act of Congress to take effect. The new system grants IPAB the authority to make changes to the Medicare program with the Congress being given the power to overrule the agency’s decisions through supermajority vote.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPAB

IPAB was created with its ostensible purpose to “control costs.” In reality, it will do nothing at all about costs. Instead, the board’s fifteen “experts” will impose old-fashioned price controls. Before Obamacare was signed into law in March of 2010, only Congress had the power to make changes to Medicare’s reimbursement rates. But PPACA, for all intents and purposes, transfers that power to this tiny cadre of presidential appointees who will have no accountability to the voters. In theory, IPAB can only propose changes to Medicare’s payment rates. In practice, however, the board’s proposals will take effect automatically unless Congress passes contrary legislation and the President signs it into law.
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/04/22/ipab-is-an-acronym-for-death-p?nomobile=1

I know, I too wince when I say it but the “death panel seems to exist!” Rationing of care has been going on for years, the major difference now is it will be the federal government with it’s board of 15 advisors of whom will consist of businessmen and women and very few caregivers. Granny is going to have her care regulated or rationed by a “panel of business men and women” with a lot of statistics lying out in front of them complete with a matrix decision making grid plugging in past best practice measures and coming to a determination and forcing providers to make end of life decisions and withholding procedures because it makes best economic sense.

Congressman Scott Dejarlais (R) 4th District TN and local Physician said it best recently in an interview telling reporters that the IPAB panel was “designed to put a Washington bureaucrat between the patient and their doctor.”
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/21/politics/health-care-ipab/index.htm

If death panels or rationing panels do not exist then why are Congressmen taking a stance against it? Why does the proposal keep making it to every bill? Why is it always the topic of conversation and rolls so easily off the presidents lips? Because they see it as the only way to reign in spending and by rationing care this is the only way they see for OBAMACARE and our country to survive under this oppressive healthcare system.

Fortunately, for now, Congress, just a few months ago voted to stop IPAB and death panels from making it’s way into the final healthcare bill in it’s present known form. Warning to you that since this stop gap measure there is already talk of slipping this back in to the plan in the future. The government just has to make it palatable or simply hope for you not to be looking when it is made permanent. The goal is to restore death panels, that Congress just knocked down for the time being to have them active by 2013, no later than 2017. This president has shown he doesn’t need Congress or the constitution to make decisions, he only needs to speak it and it happens.

Congress repeals “death panel provision.”
March 22, 2012-
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/22/house-votes-to-repeal-ipab-obamacare-death-panels/

The U.S. House of Representatives today voted to repeal a portion of the Obamacare law that pro-life advocates strongly opposed because it could lead to rationing of health care for patients across the nation.

Leading pro-life groups had been asking members of Congress to approve legislation that would repeal the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which has been derisively called “death panels” by detractors.

Today, the Republican-controlled House voted for legislation to do just that on a 223-181 vote, with seven Democrats supporting the measure. The Senate is not expected to take up the measure and the vote could turn Obamacare into even greater election issue than it is currently.

“Both create government panels to dictate quality and cost containment,” Santorum explained. “Some of you may be familiar with the Independent Payment Advisory Board — which is a board separate from Congress, independent of Congress — that President Obama created to control health care costs. How? By cutting reimbursements to doctors and hospitals under the Medicare program. Well, Gov. Romney has a similar program called the Council on Health Quality and Costs.”

“Some people refer to these types of boards as death panels,” he added. “Why? Because they ultimately decide to ration care to those procedures and people because they don’t believe these procedures are effective in providing care, that the utilization isn’t worth the costs.”

“So, again, you have government making decisions and rationing and apportioning care based on research that shows what outcomes are dictated by the research that’s out there.”

In 2009, Politifact named “death panels,” a term thought to have been first used by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R), as their “Lie of the Year.”

What then Alaska Governor Palin failed to do was make her argument against IPAB. Instead she made her argument against coordinated voluntary end of life decisions, which was in the original bill and has been softened to make you accept it. The proposed and recently turned down death panel or IPAB fight is far from over. Still stuck in the OBAMACARE health bill is even if the IPAB is repealed the President can still delegate the “death panel” chores over to Secretary of HHS Kathryn Sebelius and then she will delegate to a panel of fifteen again.

The term Death panel or whatever you call it does exist and is ready to take over in 2013. The death panel in any form will go forward. For the plan to work and to display a significant profit for the insurance companies inside the exchanges they will need some very strict oversight, which will be seen as a necessity.

Whether you call it a death panel or not, decisions will be made by a set of bureaucrats and many will die because of those decisions. Because they say it makes economical sense and provides a huge profit for all involved, even for the US Government, now the largest healthcare manager in the world, it doesn’t make it right.

Other interesting reading on IPAB!
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/ipab-obamacares-superlegislature

This according to my research was not accepted in the final bill! Many spoke up and said they didn’t want the government paying Providers to counsel or approach family members with a profit incentive to discuss end of life care.

Even as you slept the powers that be are dead set on getting some type of control over your end of life decisions, they have to! Be aware of moves in the future and the next time you decide to scoff at others informing you, do a little research and see the light that is blinding you is also keeping you from seeing the truth.

SEC. 1233. VOLUNTARY ADVANCE CARE PLANNING CON6 SULTATION. 7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1861 of the Social Secu8 rity Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x) is amended— 9 (1) in subsection (s)(2)— 10 (A) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of sub11 paragraph (DD); 12 (B) by adding ‘‘and’’ at the end of sub13 paragraph (EE); and 14 (C) by adding at the end the following new 15 subparagraph: 16 ‘‘(FF) voluntary advance care planning con17 sultation (as defined in subsection (hhh)(1));’’; and 18 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub19 section: 20 ‘‘Voluntary Advance Care Planning Consultation 21 ‘‘(hhh)(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the 22 term ‘voluntary advance care planning consultation’ 23 means an optional consultation between the individual and 24 a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding ad 1 vance care planning. Such consultation may include the 2 following, as specified by the Secretary: 3 ‘‘(A) An explanation by the practitioner of ad4 vance care planning, including a review of key ques5 tions and considerations, advance directives (includ6 ing living wills and durable powers of attorney) and 7 their uses. 8 ‘‘(B) An explanation by the practitioner of the 9 role and responsibilities of a health care proxy and 10 of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports 11 available, including palliative care and hospice, and 12 benefits for such services and supports that are 13 available under this title. 14 ‘‘(C) An explanation by the practitioner of phy15 sician orders regarding life sustaining treatment or 16 similar orders, in States where such orders or simi17 lar orders exist. 18 ‘‘(2) A practitioner described in this paragraph is— 19 ‘‘(A) a physician (as defined in subsection 20 (r)(1)); and 21 ‘‘(B) another health care professional (as speci22 fied by the Secretary and who has the authority 23 under State law to sign orders for life sustaining 24 treatments, such as a nurse practitioner or physician 25 assistant). 651 •HR 3962 EH 1 ‘‘(3) An individual may receive the voluntary advance 2 care planning care planning consultation provided for 3 under this subsection no more than once every 5 years 4 unless there is a significant change in the health or health5 related condition of the individual. 6 ‘‘(4) For purposes of this section, the term ‘order re7 garding life sustaining treatment’ means, with respect to 8 an individual, an actionable medical order relating to the 9 treatment of that individual that effectively communicates 10 the individual’s preferences regarding life sustaining treat11 ment, is signed and dated by a practitioner, and is in a 12 form that permits it to be followed by health care profes13 sionals across the continuum of care.’’. 14 (b) CONSTRUCTION.—The voluntary advance care 15 planning consultation described in section 1861(hhh) of 16 the Social Security Act, as added by subsection (a), shall 17 be completely optional. Nothing in this section shall— 18 (1) require an individual to complete an ad19 vance directive, an order for life sustaining treat20 ment, or other advance care planning document; 21 (2) require an individual to consent to restric22 tions on the amount, duration, or scope of medical Link: http://energycommerce.house.g…
Reply

46 Reasons to Repeal ALL of Obamacare NOW

June 28, 2012
50 now 46 Reasons to Repeal ALL of Obamacare NOW

Provisions 10,15,24 and 34 were struck down!

Before you read this remember this is mostly the financial side and how it will affect the state and ultimately you! I am working on a post of the more scary stuff and how it will directly affect you. All the more reason to repeal or nullify this horrible encroachment on you and your way of life! This will more than likely back fire in our faces and all I can say is we were warned and we didn’t send a strong enough message!

A special thanks to the Jim DeMint office for putting these provisions together!

http://www.demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=freedom-on-call&ContentRecord_id=ee1053b9-0ef7-4425-b81e-58620a89bb60&ContentType_id=e915486e-a0be-46eb-9fff-75dc61f28710&Group_id=78a5977a-062b-4259-ae04-d82a78579699

Today the Supreme Court struck down portions of Obamacare as unconstitutional –states cannot be “dragooned” into expanding their Medicaid programs according to the law’s dictates. However, a list of 50 particularly onerous or egregious provisions in Obamacare (with sections from the statute duly noted) reveals just how much of this bad law remains. By the most generous interpretation, the Court struck down only four of the 50 egregious policies, illustrating why Congress should immediately repeal the entire measure once and for all.  Among many other bad policies, the law:

1.Imposes $800 billion in tax increases, including no fewer than 12 separate provisions breaking candidate Obama’s “firm pledge” during his campaign that he would not raise “any of your taxes” (Sections 9001-9016)

2.Forces Americans to purchase a product for the first time ever (Section 1501)

3. Creates a board of 15 unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats to make binding rulings on how to reduce Medicare spending (Section 3403)

4. Pays over $800 billion in subsidies straight to health insurance companies (Sections 1401, 1402, and 1412)

5. Requires all individuals to buy government-approved health insurance plans, imposing new mandates that will raise individual insurance premiums by an average of $2,100 per family (Section 1302)

6. Forces seniors to lose their current health care, by enacting Medicare Advantage cuts that by 2017 will cut enrollment in half, and cut plan choices by two-thirds (Section 3201)

7. Imposes a 40 percent tax on health benefits, a direct contradiction of Barack Obama’s campaign promises (Section 9001)

8. Relies upon government bureaucrats to “issue guidance on best practices of plain language writing” (Section 1311(e)(3)(B))

9. Provides special benefits to residents of Libby, Montana — home of Max Baucus, the powerful Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, who helped write the law even though he says he hasn’t read it (Section 10323)

10. Imposes what a Democrat Governor called the “mother of all unfunded mandates” – new, Washington-dictated requirements of at least $118 billion – at a time when states already face budget deficits totaling a collective $175 billion (Section 2001)

11.  Imposes reductions in Medicare spending that, according to the program’s non-partisan actuary, would cause 40 percent of all Medicare providers to become unprofitable, and could lead to their exit from the program (Section 3401)

12.  Raises premiums on more than 17 million seniors participating in Medicare Part D, so that Big Pharma can benefit from its “rock-solid deal” struck behind closed doors with President Obama and Congressional Democrats (Section 3301)

13.  Creates an institute to undertake research that, according to one draft Committee report prepared by Democrats, could mean that “more expensive [treatments] will no longer be prescribed” (Section 6301)

14.  Creates a multi-billion dollar “slush fund” doled out solely by federal bureaucrats, which has already been used to fund things like bike paths (Section 4002)

15.  Subjects states to myriad new lawsuits, by forcing them to assume legal liability for delivering services to Medicaid patients for the first time in that program’s history (Section 2304)

16.  Permits taxpayer dollars to flow to health plans that fund abortion, in a sharp deviation from prior practice under Democrat and Republican Administrations (Section 1303)

17.  Empowers bureaucrats on a board that has ruled against mammograms and against prostate cancer screenings to make binding determinations about what types of preventive services should be covered (Sections 2713 and 4104)

18.  Precludes poor individuals from having a choice of health care plans by automatically dumping them in the Medicaid program (Section 1413(a))

19.  Creates a new entitlement program that one Democrat called “a Ponzi scheme of the first order, the kind of thing that Bernie Madoff would have been proud of” — a scheme so unsustainable even the Administration was forced to admit it would not work (Section 8002)

20.  Provides $5 billion in taxpayer dollars to a fund that has largely served to bail out unions and other organizations who made unsustainable health care promises to retirees that they cannot afford (Section 1102)

21.  Creates a tax credit so convoluted it requires seven different worksheets to determine eligibility (Section 1421)

22.  Imposes multiple penalties on those who marry, by reducing subsidies (and increasing taxes) for married couples when compared to two individuals cohabiting together (Sections 1401-02)

23.  Extends the Medicare “payroll tax” to unearned income for the first time ever, including new taxes on the sale of some homes (Section 1402)

24.  Impedes state flexibility by requiring Medicaid programs to offer a specific package of benefits, including benefits like family planning services (Sections 2001(a)(2), 2001(c), 1302(b), and 2303(c))

25.  Requires individuals to go to the doctor and get a prescription in order to spend their own Flexible Spending Account money on over-the-counter medicines (Section 9003)

26.  Expands the definition of “low-income” to make 63 percent of non-elderly Americans eligible for “low-income” subsidized insurance (Section 1401)

27.  Imposes a new tax on the makers of goods like pacemakers and hearing aids (Section 9009)

28.  Creates an insurance reimbursement scheme that could result in the federal government obtaining Americans’ medical records (Section 1343)

29.  Permits states to make individuals presumptively eligible for Medicaid for unlimited 60-day periods, thus allowing any individual to receive taxpayer-funded assistance ad infinitum (Section 2303(b))

30.  Allows individuals to purchase insurance on government exchanges — and to receive taxpayer-funded insurance subsidies — WITHOUT verifying their identity as American citizens (Section 1411)

31.  Gives $300 million in higher Medicaid reimbursements to one state as part of the infamous “Louisiana Purchase” — described by ABC News as “what…it take[s] to get a wavering senator to vote for health care reform” (Section 2006)

32.  Raises taxes on firms who cannot afford to buy coverage for their workers (Section 1513)

33.  Forces younger Americans to pay double-digit premium increases so that older workers can pay slightly less (Section 1201)

34.  Prohibits states from modifying their Medicaid programs to include things like modest anti-fraud protections (Section 2001)

35.  Includes a special provision increasing federal payments just for Tennessee (Section 1203(b))

36.  Allows individuals to purchase health insurance across state lines — but only if politicians and bureaucrats agree to allow citizens this privilege (Section 1333)

37.  Allows the HHS Secretary and federal bureaucrats to grant waivers exempting people from Obamacare’s onerous mandates, over half of which have gone to members of union plans (Section 1001)

38.  Creates a pseudo-government-run plan overseen by the federal government (Section 1334)

39.  Removes a demonstration project designed to force government-run Medicare to compete on a level playing field with private plans (Section 1102(f))

40.  Gives the Secretary of HHS an UNLIMITED amount of federal funds to spend funding state insurance Exchanges (Section 1311(a))

41.  Creates a grant program that could be used by liberal groups like ACORN or AARP to conduct “public education activities” surrounding Obamacare (Section 1311(i))

42.  Applies new federal mandates to pre-Obamacare insurance policies, thus proving that you CAN’T keep the insurance plan you had — and liked — before the law passed (Sections 2301 and 10103)

43.  Prohibits individuals harmed by federal bureaucrats from challenging those decisions, either in court or through regulatory processes (Sections 3001, 3003, 3007, 3008, 3021, 3022, 3025, 3133, 3403, 5501, 6001, and 6401)

44.  Earmarks $100 million for “construction of a health care facility,” a “sweetheart deal” inserted by a Democrat Senator trying to win re-election (Section 10502)

45.  Puts yet another Medicaid unfunded mandate on states, by raising payments to primary care physicians, but only for two years, forcing states to come up with another method of funding this unsustainable promise when federal funding expires (Section 1202)

46.  Imposes price controls that have had the effect of costing jobs in the short time since they were first implemented (Section 1001)

47.  Prohibits individuals from spending federal insurance subsidies outside government-approved Exchanges (Section 1401(a))

48.  Provides a special increase in federal hospital payments just for Hawaii (Section 10201(e)(1))

49.  Imposes new reporting requirements that will cost businesses millions of dollars, and affect thousands of restaurants and other establishments across the country (Section 4205)

50.  Codifies 159 new boards, bureaucracies, and programs

The Supreme Court may have struck some of these onerous provisions, but the only way to ensure that ALL these provisions are eliminated — and never return — is to repeal ALL of this unconstitutional law immediately.

Reversing Obamacare, the key: Wickard V. Filburn and the Commerce Clause

Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity. A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

The Supreme Court, interpreting the United States Constitution’s Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8 (which permits the United States Congress “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;”) decided that, because Filburn’s wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn’s production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce, and so could be regulated by the federal government.

The Commerce Clause
The provision of the U.S. Constitution that gives Congress exclusive power over trade activities among the states and with foreign countries and Indian tribes.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, of the Constitution empowers Congress “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” The term commerce as used in the Constitution means business or commercial exchanges in any and all of its forms between citizens of different states, including purely social communications between citizens of different states by telegraph, telephone, or radio, and the mere passage of persons from one state to another for either business or pleasure.

Intrastate, or domestic, commerce is trade that occurs solely within the geographic borders of one state. As it does not move across state lines, intrastate commerce is subject to the exclusive control of the state.

Interstate commerce, or commerce among the several states, is the free exchange of commodities between citizens of different states across state lines. Commerce with foreign nations occurs between citizens of the United States and citizens or subjects of foreign governments and, either immediately or at some stage of its progress, is extraterritorial. Commerce with Indian tribes refers to traffic or commercial exchanges involving both the United States and American Indians.

The Commerce Clause was designed to eliminate an intense rivalry between the groups of those states that had tremendous commercial advantage as a result of their proximity to a major harbor, and those states that were not near a harbor. That disparity was the source of constant economic battles among the states. The exercise by Congress of its regulatory power has increased steadily with the growth and expansion of industry and means of transportation.

Power to Regulate

The Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to regulate commerce in order to ensure that the flow of interstate commerce is free from local restraints imposed by various states. When Congress deems an aspect of interstate commerce to be in need of supervision, it will enact legislation that must have some real and rational relation to the subject of regulation. Congress may constitutionally provide for the point at which subjects of interstate commerce become subjects of state law and, therefore, state regulation.

Although the U.S. Constitution places some limits on state power, the states enjoy guaranteed rights by virtue of their reserved powers pursuant to the Tenth Amendment. A state has the inherent and reserved right to regulate its domestic commerce. However, that right must be exercised in a manner that does not interfere with, or place a burden on, interstate commerce, or else Congress may regulate that area of domestic commerce in order to protect interstate commerce from the unreasonable burden. Although a state may not directly regulate, prohibit, or burden interstate or foreign commerce, it may incidentally and indirectly affect it by a bona fide, legitimate, and reasonable exercise of its police powers. States are powerless to regulate commerce with Indian tribes.

Although Congress has the exclusive power to regulate foreign and interstate commerce, the presence or absence of congressional action determines whether a state may act in a particular field. The nature of the subject of commerce must be examined in order to decide whether Congress has exclusive control over it. If the subject is national in character and importance, thereby requiring uniform regulation, the power of Congress to regulate it is plenary, or exclusive.

It is for the courts to decide the national or local character of the subject of regulation, by Balancing the national interest against the State Interest in the subject. If the state interest is slight compared with the national interest, the courts will declare the state statute unconstitutional as an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce.

Supreme Court opts to hear case against Obamacare, to DC part deaux!

As many may have heard yesterday, the supreme court has chosen to take up and hear arguments that Obamacare is unconstitutional and therefore unlawful!

This is a huge momentous decision and may chart the course of healthcare forever! Not only have they chosen to hear arguments but have singled out the crux of our argument which is the Commerce clause and Wickard V. Filburn!

They have given Van Irion the opportunity to file an Amicus Brief and have set aside 5 hours to argue this case! I am extremely pleased to be named as one of the lead plaintiffs in this case as I have come to see what Obamacare is doing and will do to the best healthcare system period!

I am already packing my bags for another trip to DC in March! LETS JOIN VAN IRION and support him!

Breaking News: This morning the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether Obamacare is Constitutional. The Court granted petitions filed by various parties in the cases originating from Florida. Liberty Legal Foundation is already preparing an amicus brief to be filed in this case.

The Court has allotted 5 hours for oral argument, to be held next March. This is an unusually large allotment of time for oral argument, reflecting the complexity and importance of the issues.

The Court identified three issues to focus on: 1) Whether the individual mandate is within Congresses authority under the commerce clause; 2) Whether the individual mandate is a tax or a penalty; and 3) Whether all of Obamacare must be thrown out if the individual mandate is thrown out.

Once again Liberty Legal Foundation will be the only organization arguing that the commerce clause was grossly misinterpreted by the 1942 Supreme Court in Wickard v. Filburn. We’re the only ones saying that ALL of Obamacare is unconstitutional. The fact that all Obamacare rulings to date reference Wickard illustrates that this precedent is the crux of the issue.

All of the other Obamacare opponents are arguing that the individual mandate simply goes too far. They concede that Wickard v. Filburn is good precedent and, with wishful thinking, advance that the individual mandate is beyond Congressional authority even under Wickard. They are wrong because they refuse to accept that Wickard left no limits on Congressional authority. Thankfully, this is exactly what the DC Circuit Court explained just last week.

By ignoring the problem and focusing on the symptoms, the other Obamacare opponents are playing into Obama’s hands. As I’ve written before, the individual mandate was included intentionally to be a lightning rod issue. By focusing on the individual mandate, the other opponents are forced to concede that everything else in Obamacare is constitutional. Obama figured that if he lost this throw away issue, at least the rest of the law would survive. If they won, then they get everything they want and move on to their next violation of individual freedom. In either case most of Obamacare survives.

Liberty Legal Foundation is the only group advancing the clearest solution to the true problem, not just a band-aid fix. But the only way to get there is to first admit that the individual mandate is within Congressional authority under Wickard, because Wickard eliminated all limits on Congressional authority. Only by making this admission can we demonstrate the absurdity of the Wickard precedent and show the Supreme Court the clear solution to the Obamacare question: Overturn Wickard!

The Federal government has now admitted in court that under Wickard there are no limitations on Congressional authority. We must use this rare moment of clarity to assure that the Supreme Court fixes their 70 year-old mistake.

I understand the aversion to admitting that Congress currently has no limits on its authority. But denying the truth does not fix the problem. Everyone needs to accept the fact that Congress has been acting outside its Constitutional scope of authority since 1942. This is why our Federal government is completely out of control. Obamacare is simply the latest proof of this fact. The only way to start to restore our Constitutional Republic is to overturn Wickard.

Even if the other opponents to Obamacare were to succeed, the parties arguing that the individual mandate is “beyond Wickard” would leave Wickard as valid precedent. Their arguments will leave most of Obamacare in place. Their arguments will leave us with a Congress that understands that it has ALMOST no limits on its power. Such a victory would be a hollow one that would leave us worse off than we were before.

We need your support now more than ever. Filing an amicus brief will take a great deal of resources. Please support our efforts to restore our Constitutional Republic.
In Liberty,

Van Irion
 
Co-Founder, Lead Counsel
LIBERTY LEGAL FOUNDATION
 
Got a Question or Comment?
Send me an email!

Thank you for supporting Liberty Legal Foundation. Without your generous support, this work would not be possible!

Liberty Legal Foundation is an non-profit corporation that relies entirely on donations to continue our fight to restore Constitutional limits on government and overturn flawed court precedent. Please consider making a tax deductible donation to help us cover our administrative and legal costs. You may make checks payable to “Liberty Legal Foundation” and mail to 9040 Executive Park Dr, Ste 200, Knoxville, TN 37923. Donations can be made online by clicking the link above.

Visit us on Twitter!
Visit us on Facebook!
Contact Us:
Phone/Fax: 423-208-9953
Email: help@libertylegalfoundation.org