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.
Aloha! to ObamaCare Exchange in Hawaii!
By John Lillpop Wednesday, May 13, 2015
As Barack Obama and equally muddled leftists continue to celebrate the outstanding “success” of Marxist health care—known derisively as ObamaCare to friends and foes alike—-one of the US states in which Obama was allegedly born begs to differ with the success narrative pushed by The One and his hand maidens in the mainstream, lamebrain media.
Collapse: Hawaii squandered $205 million on its soon-to-be-shuttered ObamaCare exchange.
By Robert Laurie Wednesday, May 13, 2015
Back when ObamaCare was first rolling out, we chronicled the horror stories associated with the various state exchanges. In the initial months of the ACA launch, the effort put forth by Hawaii was easily one of the biggest failures, managing to register a whopping zero customers for “quality, affordable, healthcare.” Still, they pressed on - determined to make their exchange the kind of “liberal utopia” success story they believed it could be.
ObamaCare’s medical device tax is so bad, even congressional Dems want it gone
By Robert Laurie Tuesday, May 12, 2015
There are dozens of reasons to think that ObamaCare was written while its architects were four martinis deep in their five martini lunches. Provision after provision has proven to be unworkable, unsustainable, or ineffective. The whole law is currently collapsing under its own weight, while it exacerbates problems it was allegedly going to fix.
Still, Democrats like to pretend it’s a panacea. In their mind, it’s the end-all-be-all of healthcare law, at least until they can ram single payer down your throat and give the government complete control over your medical life.
Congress readies coverage for all, no matter how the court rules on state exchanges
By Grace-Marie Turner Thursday, May 7, 2015
ALEXANDRIA, Virginia—If you like your coverage, you can keep your coverage. That’s the pledge leading members of Congress are making to six million Americans at risk of losing their health insurance this year because of Obama administration actions.