Obama: Regulators will never approve those massive health premium increases; Regulators: APPROVED
By Dan Calabrese Friday, August 28, 2015
The argument has been ever-present, where ObamaCare is concerned, that mandating generous benefits while forbidding insurers from considering factors like pre-existing conditions, could only result in one thing: Sky-high, jacked up premiums for everyone. It’s simple economics. You can’t artificially heighten demand by forcing everyone to buy, while also mandating a gold standard in coverage, and not see prices soar.
But Barack Obama thinks the regulatory state can do what the stone-cold laws of the market cannot. So when insurers earlier this year began submitting their rate increase requests to state regulators - and the numbers were pretty frightening - Obama waved it off as mere posturing and assured everyone that what regulators would actually approve would be nothing of the sort.
The Killing Fields of Socialized Healthcare
By News on the Net Monday, August 24, 2015
The Department of Veterans Affairs is the perfect example of socialized healthcare. The federal government owns all the hospitals, employs all the staff, and leaves patients to languish and sometimes die on waitlists. A year after news broke that VA hospitals kept veterans waiting months to see a doctor, including in Wyoming, the VA still refuses to admit its methods endangered veterans. But new evidence reveals that the agency’s practices are disastrous for our wounded warriors.
Scott Walker lays out his plan to repeal and replace ObamaCare
By Dan Calabrese Wednesday, August 19, 2015
If we can focus for a moment on a substantive issue in the midst of this presidential campaign, we all know that one of the top priorities for a new Republican president has to be the repeal of ObamaCare. But it is neither possible nor desirable to go back to what we had before ObamaCare, which was hardly a market-based, patient-focused system. It basically used the tax code to manipulate people into being dependent on employer-provided health insurance for even the simplest of health needs. What ObamaCare did was double down on the problems inherent in that system so as to make it even worse.
Uh-oh… The New York Times notices that ObamaCare is causing insurance rates to soar
By Robert Laurie Monday, July 6, 2015
There have been plenty of stories about the ways in which ObamaCare is driving up healthcare costs. All across the country, we’ve seen double digit insurance rate hikes and soaring premiums. It’s nothing new, and conservatives have been warning that this would be the case since long before the unpopular law was rammed down America’s throat.
Basing their decision on “inartful drafting” tags the majority as “inartful dodger
By Guest Column Thursday, July 2, 2015
VIRGINIA BEACH, Virginia—A majority of the Supreme Court in King v. Burwell got it wrong. Instead of applying the ObamaCare law as written, the 6-3 majority took a bold step and actually rewrote the law.
A key part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) says the subsidies are available only to Americans who enrolled “through an exchange established by the state”—a clear reason, as we argued in our amicus brief, that the subsidies should not be available to those in states without their own exchanges.
House votes to put ObamaCare death panels to death
By Dan Calabrese Thursday, July 2, 2015
Just in case you believed the mainstream media and their “fact-checkers” with the claims that this had been “debunked,” know that Sarah Palin was 100 percent correct when she talked about ObamaCare death panels. The Independent Payment Advisory Board is not only empowered to restrict life-saving measures and medications because IPAB thinks they cost too much, it’s also shielded from having to get congressional approval for its decisions.
We told you two years ago how and why IPAB is little more than a government cabal empowered to use its cost-cutting authority to decide when lives can be saved and when they cannot. Actually, we didn’t tell you. We quoted a certain doctor named Howard Dean who explained the whole thing in the exact same terms as Palin, save for a certain phrase:
What SCOTUScare means to you
By Herman Cain Monday, June 29, 2015
The recent Supreme Court ruling on health insurance subsidies means they upheld the “stupidity of the American people” (as Jonathan Gruber would say, and has), and for the third time the Court stretched the law instead of interpreting the law.
How the Court arrived at this 6-3 decision has baffled many observers, and the ruling opinion written by Justice Roberts stuns those of us who believe that certain words matter, as Rob said last week.
SCOTUS Rewrites ObamaCare to Save It
By Arnold Ahlert Friday, June 26, 2015
One might think a 2700-page, largely unread healthcare bill passed solely by Democrats that remains as unpopular as ever might chasten the president who championed it. Especially when that effort was based on a litany of lies, one of which earned Obama Politifact’s 2013 Lie of the Year award.
AIM Responds to Supreme Court Decision on Obamacare
By Roger Aronoff Friday, June 26, 2015
The Supreme Court bent over backwards today in an attempt to save Obamacare from its own tortured language by reinterpreting the statute, making the plain phrase “Exchange established by the state” signify both the state and federal exchanges. The mainstream media, in turn, are triumphal, having helped sway the final decision.
We have repeatedly written about The New York Times’ biased reporting regarding the King v. Burwell case and Obamacare in general. Today, the Times’ Editorial Board came out and said what Americans already knew, having read many of this paper’s farcical health care columns masquerading as reporting. The Times condemned the plaintiffs as having spearheaded a “blatantly political effort to destroy the Affordable Care Act,” called the case an “ideological farce dressed in a specious legal argument,” and claimed “the court should never have taken review of it to begin with.”
SCOTUS grants Obama another gift, ignores the English language to uphold ObamaCare subsidies
By Robert Laurie Thursday, June 25, 2015
And that’s that. Obama, as usual, gets his way. It was predictable, really. Having abandoned the meaning of words within the English language, the Supreme Court is now free to ignore the actual text of laws and pretend things were written that never were.
Newly uncovered e-mails prove Jonathan Gruber key to ObamaCare design
By Dan Calabrese Monday, June 22, 2015
If you’ve forgotten why it mattered that Jonathan Gruber was one of the key architects of ObamaCare - and why the White House tried so hard to pretend they had no idea who he was - let’s just bring it back to the top of everyone’s mind. Gruber said a lot of things about the American people being stupid, and about Democrats’ exploiting that perceived stupidity in the course of hiding the law’s true costs. All of that was politically problematic for the White House, but here’s the statement that was (and might still be) legally problematic for the law’s survival:
Whose job will it be to fix ObamaCare? Everyone but Obama, says Obama
By Freedom Watch Monday, June 15, 2015
If the Supreme Court rules against the Obama Administration in the King v. Burwell case, what they’ll be deciding is that ObamaCare means what it says—and people are only eligible for federal subsidies to their health premiums if they bought the policies on state-run exchanges.
Heritage: A simple way to solve the problem if King v. Burwell strikes down ObamaCare subsidies
By Dan Calabrese Monday, June 8, 2015
With a ruling coming soon in the King v. Burwell case, the nation is preparing for what will happen if the Supreme Court decides ObamaCare actually means what it says, and that the federal government cannot subsidize premiums bought on the federal exchange. Lots of speculation is underway concerning what to do if people lose their subsidies.
ObamaCare rate hikes range from 30-to-50 percent in 2016
By Dan Calabrese Tuesday, June 2, 2015
If you don’t recognize there’s something inherently cockeyed about the federal government passing a law that presumes to make a product or service “affordable,” then you don’t understand how market forces work. I’ll oversimplify it for the purpose of brevity: Providers have to price a product or service in a way that reflects the cost of providing it, as well as the level of demand for it, because if they don’t they will soon find themselves incapable of meeting the demand.
New York Times Still Deceiving About Obamacare
By Roger Aronoff Wednesday, May 27, 2015
The New York Times is at it again. In a front page story in Tuesday’s print edition, the Times is dishonestly pushing an argument that they hope will result in a favorable Supreme Court decision for President Obama’s so called Affordable Care Act. The mantra repeated over and over again is this: those four words in the Obamacare law—“established by the state”—were actually an accident, a drafting error. And those words, according to the Times and all of the sources they chose to comment on it for the article, are being misinterpreted by some who want to, shall we say, “degrade and defeat” the law.