Prescription for Disaster

ObamaCare Won't Work (Even if the Court Upholds the Law)

Thursday, May 24, 2012
A new CNNMoney article states:

The Obama administration maintains that its Affordable Care Act is a complex construct that's endangered if the Supreme Court finds its central feature -- the requirement that all Americans buy health insurance -- unconstitutional. It's certainly true that eliminating the "individual mandate" will immediately expose the plan as unworkable. It can only succeed by creating a broad, universal insurance pool that collects big premiums from the young and healthy. If the young and healthy aren't required to sign on, they won't. Hence, the pools won't be remotely large enough to pay for the older, sicker folks who get the best deal, and are bound to flock to the state exchanges.

In reality, the reform plan's success doesn't depend on the Supreme Court's decision at all. Its faulty design virtually guarantees that all the things the administration warns will happen if it loses will happen anyway. Even if it stands, the legislation will spawn insurance plans crowded with high-cost folks, driving premiums higher, hobbling competition as carriers abandon the exchanges, and leaving tens of millions of Americans uninsured.

Read the full article here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC. 


Bookmark and Share

Krauthammer: Obama v. SCOTUS

Monday, April 09, 2012
In response to President Obama's comments about the Supreme Court, Charles Krauthammer takes on the liberal meme that striking down the individual mandate would look political:

"Having lost the argument, what to do? Bully. The New York Times loftily warned the Supreme Court that it would forfeit its legitimacy if it ruled against Obamacare, because with the 'five Republican-appointed justices supporting the challenge led by 26 Republican governors, the court will mark itself as driven by politics.'”

"Really? The administration’s case for the constitutionality of Obamacare was so thoroughly demolished in oral argument that one liberal observer called it 'a train wreck.' It is perfectly natural, therefore, that a majority of the Court should side with the argument that had so clearly prevailed on its merits. That’s not partisanship. That’s logic. Partisanship is four Democrat-appointed justices giving lockstep support to a law passed by a Democratic Congress and a Democratic president — after the case for its constitutionality had been reduced to rubble."

Read Krauthammer's full article here. 

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC


Bookmark and Share

Justice of the Supreme Court will Cast Initial Votes on ObamaCare Today

Friday, March 30, 2012

According to press reports, the Justices of the Supreme Court will cast their preliminary votes today on the outcome of the ObamaCare litigation. The conference will help determine who will be assigned the responsibility of writing the majority and minority opinions.

For more on the conference process, read here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC


Bookmark and Share

Sowell on the Supreme Court Precedent that Could Decide the ObamaCare Case

Thursday, March 29, 2012
Thomas Sowell explains that Wickard v. Filburn, a 1942 Supreme Court decision that first allowed Congress to regulate merely incidental commerce under the rubric of "interstate affect", is the lynchpin in the Florida lawsuit challenging the individual mandate. More importantly, Sowell explains why this misguided decision is wrong.

Thus far, courts that have upheld the mandate have relied on Wickard to justify their decision.

Read Sowell's article here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Bookmark and Share

Listen to the Supreme Court Hearing on ObamaCare

Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Did you know the Supreme Court will be releasing daily audio tapes of the oral arguments over ObamaCare each day? You can find links to the arguments on the Court's website.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Bookmark and Share

Sebelius Throws DOJ Under the Bus

Friday, March 02, 2012
Okay - DOJ has repeatedly argued that the individual mandate is a tax to fend off legal challenges about the constitutionality of the mandate and ObamaCare as a whole. This gives them the "hook" to claim the law is constitutional because it is based on Congress' taxing powers. The law itself, however, states it is not a tax.

At any rate, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius threw DOJ under the bus in testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee the other day when she said that the mandate was "not a tax per se."


Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC


Bookmark and Share

Senator Sessions Makes the Case for Kagan Recusal in ObamaCare Suit

Monday, February 27, 2012
Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) has written a powerful piece examining whether Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan should recuse herself from the ObamaCare lawsuit that the court will hear in March and concluding that she most certainly should recuse herself.  Senator Sessions made the following comments:

"According to Section 455(b)(3) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code, justices must disqualify themselves in cases where they have 'served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser, or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case or controversy.' In United States v. Gipson, the Tenth Circuit held that judges must recuse themselves if they have 'previously taken a part, albeit small, in the investigation, preparation, or prosecution of a case.'" Justice Kagan has certainly met this criteria for recusal.

"Recusal due to previous participation in a case is not an admission of wrongdoing, but rather an expected consequence when a government lawyer accedes to the bench. Indeed, Justice Thurgood Marshall — the last solicitor general to become a justice, and the justice for whom Kagan clerked — recused himself from 98 of the 171 cases decided by the Court in his first year, and most of them were cases in which the federal government was a party."

"Justice Kagan has recognized that her involvement as solicitor general in the preparation of the government’s challenge to Arizona’s immigration law prohibits her involvement in that case as a judge — even though the lawsuit was not filed until two months after she ceased performing the duties of her office due to her nomination, and even though she testified that she was not asked to express an opinion on the Arizona law. In contrast, Justice Kagan’s involvement in the preparation of the government’s defense of the health-care law began at least as early as January 2010, four months before her nomination and two months before the bill became law. That she would not follow the same course in the health-care case is dubious. These facts require recusal."

Read Senator Sessions full article at National Review Online, here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC


Bookmark and Share

Krauthammer Explains ObamaCare vs. The Constitution

Saturday, February 25, 2012
In a wonderfully written piece, Dr. Charles Krauthammer explains how ObamaCare is fundamentally at odds with the United States Constitution. Here is an excerpt from his article:

First, its assault on the free exercise of religion. Only churches themselves are left alone. Beyond the churchyard gate, religious autonomy disappears. Every other religious institution must bow to the state because, by this administration's regulatory definition, church schools, hospitals and charities are not "religious," and thus have no right to the free exercise of religion -- no protection from being forced into doctrinal violations commanded by the state.

Second, its assault on free enterprise. To solve his own political problem, the president presumes to order a private company to enter into a contract for the provision of certain services -- all of which are free. And yet, this breathtaking arrogation of power is simply the logical extension of Washington's takeover of the private system of medical care -- a system Obama farcically pretends to be maintaining.

Under ObamaCare, the state treats private insurers the way it does government-regulated monopolies and utilities. It determines everything of importance. Insurers, by definition, set premiums according to risk. Not anymore. The risk ratios (for age, gender, smoking, etc.) are decreed by Washington. This is nationalization in all but name. The insurer is turned into a middleman, subject to state control -- and presidential whim.

Third, the assault on individual autonomy. Every citizen without insurance is ordered to buy it, again under penalty of law. This so-called individual mandate is now before the Supreme Court -- because never before has the already inflated Commerce Clause been used to compel a citizen to enter into a private contract with a private company by mere fact of his existence.

This constitutional trifecta -- the state invading the autonomy of religious institutions, private companies and the individual citizen -- should not surprise. It is what happens when the state takes over one-sixth of the economy.

You can read the full article at TownHall.com


Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC 


Bookmark and Share

Supremes Agree to Hear More Arguments about ObamaCare

Thursday, February 23, 2012
Earlier this week, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear an extra 30 minutes of oral arguments on issues related to ObamaCare. The additional time will be devoted to hearing about the Anti-Injunction Act, a federal law that generally requires courts to avoid ruling on issues of tax law unless and until a taxpayer has actually been impacted by the law (i.e., has paid the tax or been assessed a fine or penalty). This brings the total time for oral arguments to 6 hours, to be heard over 3 days.

Read more about this specific issue here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC 


Bookmark and Share

Another Amicus Brief from Free Market HealthCare Advocates

Friday, February 17, 2012
FreedomWorks has filed an amicus brief in the mulit-state lawsuit challenging ObamaCare. You can read the full brief here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC 


Bookmark and Share

 
AHEC on Facebook AHEC on Twitter AHEC on Twitter

Recent Posts


Tags


Archive