Tag Archives: obamacare

Supreme Court finds Congress irrelevant as Justices award law making powers to president and…Supreme Court

By Doug Book, editor

Coach is Right recently alerted its readers to the importance of the upcoming Supreme Court decision in King v Burwell, a case which would determine whether the Internal Revenue Service had the authority—on the orders of Barack Obama–to re-interpret the Affordable Care Act in a manner favorable to Obama and contrary to the clear language and intent of the Act as written by Congress.

Though Obama and members of his Regime have already re-written the Act (contrary to the Constitution) on 31 separate occasions, it was hoped—certainly it was never more than a hope—that the Court would uphold the will of a Congress which wrote 7 times in the Act that subsidies to ObamaCare policy holders would be made available only by ObamaCare Exchanges built by one of the 50 states. The law clearly made subsidies and tax credits unavailable in any state with an ObamaCare Exchange built by the federal government.

A ruling which found that “An Exchange established by the State” was indeed “An Exchange Established by the State” would of course make subsidies unavailable in the 34 States with an ObamaCare Exchange built by the Federal Government. Policy prices would not be competitive in 2/3rds of the nation and the Affordable Care Act would rapidly meet its demise.

But on Thursday, the Court’s decision was published and as many feared, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the clear language and intent of Congress were not acceptable to the Court as the clear language and intent of Congress. As Justice Scalia wrote in the dissent he shared with Justices Alito and Thomas, “…normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act MUST be saved.” (My Caps)

Justice Scalia’s dissent is one for the ages as he not so politely eviscerates the majority, for “The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (‘penalty’ means tax…‘established by the State’ means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence.”

For anyone not paying attention, Justice Scalia has just accused his colleagues of being dishonest. It is a statement beyond the simply critical of Justice Roberts and to a lesser degree, Justice Kennedy, as Scalia goes as far as he can in accusing both of malfeasance, corruption and, well, dishonesty.

The increasingly corrupt and pernicious purveyors of the legal system in the United States make predicting what should be the most straightforward of rulings virtually impossible. An irrepressible appetite to further a politically inspired agenda has replaced the Constitution as the foundation of American jurisprudence. Such a disgraceful and dangerous perversion of the most senior of American courts “…ignores the American people’s decision to give Congress “[a]ll legislative Powers” enumerated in the Constitution. Art. I, §1. They made Congress, not this Court, responsible for both making laws and mending them.”

But the Supreme Court, with Chief Justice Roberts in the lead, has twice “mended” the Affordable Care Act, improperly re-writing and willingly—shall it be called misinterpreting—both the text and the clearly presented desires of Congress.

America’s conservatives have lost the Supreme Court to the corruption and perversity of the left. As wanton dishonesty has replaced honor and integrity on the bench, it is difficult to imagine a time or means of returning the Court to an honest application of constitutional law.

Only 1 week until Supreme Court ruling on the future of ObamaCare

By Doug Book, Editor

Coach is Right has written extensively about the Affordable Care Act—ObamaCare—from its initial, unconstitutional passage by a Democrat controlled congress, through the disgraceful 2012 Supreme Court ruling which featured the inexplicable treachery of Chief Justice John Roberts.

Sometime during the next week the Court will decide King v Burwell, a case which will determine whether the United States and the American people may still depend upon the Constitution to defend their liberty and rights from the unlawful schemes of a tyrant.

On June 17th, CiR asked whether the Supreme Court would deliver one last ruling in defense of the illegal and unconstitutional workings of the Obama Regime.

Today, Coach is Right will publish in its entirety the commentary of Twila Brase, president of the Citizens Council for Health Freedom. A longtime expert on healthcare in America, Brase asks the key question:

Will the Supreme Court Set 37 States Free from Obamacare?

by Twila Brase

The U.S. Supreme Court will issue a ruling on the King v. Burwell Obamacare subsidy case by June 29. But pro-Obamacare forces are busy pressuring Republicans to let 6.5 million people keep their illegal subsidies (expand Obamacare) if the administration loses. Here is one example from Politico Pro:

“Inside the Beltway, we’re all on eggshells waiting on the Supreme Court’s King ruling. Outside the Beltway, not so much. The new Kaiser poll finds seven in 10 Americans have heard either nothing at all or only a little about the Obamacare case. Just 13 percent said they had heard “a lot” about it.

“Still, most people in the nearly three dozen states that could lose their subsidies said lawmakers should act to keep those flowing. About 63 percent of people overall said Congress should step in if the plaintiffs win, compared with about 55 percent of people in the states that would be affected, which are mostly controlled by Republicans….”

So the 70% who know little to nothing about the lawsuit are competent to advise Congress? I wonder what they’d say if they actually understood the law. For instance, before the Kaiser Health Tracking Poll team asked them if Congress should continue the illegal subsidies, did they ask these individuals:

· Is it OK for the President to expand Obamacare even if it’s against the law?
· Is it OK that subsidies are paid for by taxes and higher premiums on many people who can no longer
work fulltime due to Obamacare?
· Should people in 37 states be free from Obamacare’s mandates and penalties or be forced to buy health
insurance so 6.5 million people in those states can receive subsidies?
· Would you rather be able to work more hours and have more job opportunities or let the 6.5 million people
keep their illegal subsidies?

The Affordable Care Act ties mandates and penalties directly to the availability of Obamacare subsidies. Without subsidies, employers and most individuals would be free from the law’s mandates and penalties. This means employers and individuals in the 37 states without a state exchange would be free because subsidies can only be issued by an exchange “established by the state.”

Every member of Congress took an oath to defend the Constitution. In 2010, Obama and Congressional Democrats violated that oath by enacting Obamacare. But every Republican voted no.

If the justices rule against the administration (Burwell), Republicans have an opportunity to:

· Deprive the ACA of subsidy and enrollment funding it needs to stay viable.
· Implode Obamacare’s exchange and its IRS enforcement system.
· Obstruct 2,700 pages of law and more than 20,000 pages of regulations.
· Restore health care choices and decrease health care costs.
· Undo government controls over doctors and patients.

If the administration wins, freedom-restoring options include defunding and repealing Obamacare. There must be no extension of the illegal taxpayer-funded subsidies.

If the administration loses, Republicans must refuse to help Obama save his national health care legacy. The only health care legacy worth saving is health freedom — and that will take an act (or perhaps in this case, an inaction) of Congress.

In freedom,
Twila Brase, RN, PHN
President and Co-founder

Will the Supreme Court deliver one final, unconstitutional ObamaCare ruling?

By Doug Book, editor

Before the end of its current term (June 30th), the United States Supreme Court will determine whether the law of the land is established in the Constitution or by the various bureaucracies working to impose the agenda of the Obama Regime. IF the Court decides in favor of the Constitution, ObamaCare–the Affordable Care Act–will be destroyed financially. It will effectively cease to exist.

In November of last year, the Court agreed to hear King v Burwell, a suit filed against the Internal Revenue Service for usurping the power of Congress by granting itself the authority to spend $800 billion tax dollars over the next decade, money not legally allocated for Service use.

The IRS engaged in this extraordinary abuse of power in order to save the Affordable Care Act (ACA) from a financial disaster guaranteed by a failed gamble on the part of the law’s authors.  According to the Galen Institute, the IRS scheme was one of 50 changes made to the ACA after it had been passed into law; “… at least 31 that the Obama Administration has made unilaterally.”

Will the Supreme Court adhere to the language of the Constitution—and the ACA itself—by finding the IRS power grab unconstitutional?

A number of the justices hardly distinguished themselves with their ObamaCare ruling of 2012. One expects decisions based purely on promotion of the leftist agenda from the 4 Marxist members of the Court. But the nominally conservative Chief Justice John Roberts ignored both the explicit language of the Act and the clear will of Congress in his decision to rewrite the ACA by transforming the specifically defined, individual mandate penalty into a tax. It was the tax manufactured by Justice Roberts which permitted him to find the ObamaCare individual mandate constitutional.

Incredibly, however, the tax which Roberts invented—though never named–is itself unconstitutional. For Justice Robert’s brainchild represents none of the tax types defined under the Congressional power to tax in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution, or in the 16th Amendment.

How dangerous is the decision created by the chief justice? According to law professor Dave Kopel, writing for the Cato Institute, the Roberts ruling:

“…[will] give Congress the power to make laws on any subject, impose a fine for noncompliance, have the IRS collect the fine, and then claim that the entire regulatory structure is part of the tax power. The result would nullify Article I of the Constitution, which carefully grants Congress 18 specific powers – and does not grant a general power to legislate on everything.”

The Affordable Care Act “…will enable the Federal Government to regulate all private conduct and…compel the States to function as administrators of federal programs,” adds Justice Scalia. 7

The Origination Clause of the Constitution requires all tax raising measures originate in the House of Representatives. The Affordable Care Act began in the Senate.

The White House changed the ACA for political reasons 31 times, each illegal, unconstitutional or both.

The IRS has defied the Constitution, Congress and the law as it will confiscate nearly 1 trillion tax dollars from the American people in order to salvage the namesake legislation of the Service’s Lord and Master, Barack Obama.

The King ruling may represent the final opportunity of a “conservative” Supreme Court to right the corruption of the Congress, the President and one of the Court’s own.

I’m not optimistic that the 5 “conservative” justices will do the right thing by supporting the Constitution.

If Not Now, When? If Not You, Who?

By Peggy Ryan, guest writer

Shhh! Listen and you’ll hear the refrains of Obamacare echoing through the halls of Congress. It’s a trade bill instead of healthcare, backed by Republicans as well as Democrats, but at its core the bills are remarkably similar. Like Obamacare, the Trade bill is obscure (113 pages filled with caveats and reservations), it is secret and being hustled through Congress at breakneck speed to avoid scrutiny.

The 2014 election provided a mandate that Congress is choosing to ignore. It’s clear the American people reject the Obama agenda yet McConnell and Boehner are tripping over themselves to pass every bill Obama puts forth. They fought conservatives to fund Obamacare, fund illegal immigration and amnesty, increase the debt ceiling and help Obama obtain everything he wants.

Now its Obama’s fast track trade bill. The Republican leadership pushed hard for this bill and thought they had the votes. But on Friday, June 12th it was the Democrats who voted down the Trade Adjustment Assistance bill. Without that bill, the package can’t go to the President so the trade bill is dead. For now.

I say for now because Obama forces never stop just because they have experienced a loss. Pelosi has already said those brave Democrats who voted against their President can be bought with a highway bill. And the Republican leadership is working overtime to convince rogue members to change their votes. Obama supporters argue in favor of the “good” parts of this bill just as they did with Obamacare. But the ObamaCare fiasco taught us to be terrified of those bad parts we have yet to see.

But whatever the reasons of Obamatrade supporters to pass this bill, they don’t outweigh the reasons to defeat it. And among those reasons are the following:

1) It’s a secret. Didn’t we learn anything from Obamacare, from the millions who got pink slips and from the infringements on Constitutional protections that only surfaced once the law passed?
2) Like Obamacare, there are those working to alert the American people as to what’s actually in this bill. And, like Obamacare, Obamatrade backers are trying to push the bill through before those nasty facts leak out.
3) That the bill originated with Barack Obama should be enough to make it DOA. Passage is like giving a pedophile keys to the school yard. You don’t have to know the details of their plan to know their intent.
4) The “act now” mentality on Capitol Hill is disturbing. Congress is behaving like a used-car salesman who won’t let you leave the lot without a deal. This isn’t the end of all trade bills, it isn’t the end of free trade so why the hysteria?
5) This bill provides Obama with dramatically increased trade powers. In 2014, the American people voted to stop Obama, to end the Obama agenda, not support it.

Yet congressional leaders barter, trade, threaten and blackmail their members to pass this bill. They’ve won this fight in the Senate but that’s not the end. The Framers of the Constitution created a bicameral Congress, two houses so one can block the excesses of the other. The Constitution requires approval of both chambers to pass legislation so one would think America would be safe from tyranny. One would be wrong.

The Senate is already lost. Whether its majority leader is Harry Reid or Mitch McConnell, the results are the same–they support Obama at every turn. And there are enough bought-and-paid-for Republicans to give this travesty an air of legitimacy. Lindsey Graham, John McCain and Mitch McConnell are just a few of those who consistently fight on the side of Obama and the Democrats.

So we turn to the House, the chamber designed to more closely reflect the will of the people. Yes, there are political prostitutes in the House as well, (see Kevin McCarthy), but there are also people who care, who want to do the right thing. It’s to those individuals that I appeal. Take a stand, don’t let them steal your vote. There are approximately 700,000 people in your district who picked you to represent them, who chose you to do the right thing.

The American people don’t want this bill, don’t want another Obamacare indelibly signed into law. Take a chance on the people; they are far more knowledgeable about these issues than you think. Trust them, they’re your people. Reject Boehner, block Obamatrade and do it now. In the words of Hillel the Elder:

“If not now, when? If not you, who?”

Supreme Court will once again decide on survival of ObamaCare

By Doug Book, editor

On November 11 of 2014, the Supreme Court granted cert to hear King v Burwell, a suit filed to prevent the Internal Revenue Service usurping the role and authority of Congress by re-writing the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

The Affordable Care Act provides tax credits and subsidies for the purchase of health insurance through exchanges that are run by “a governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a state.”  Currently, 34 states have refused to build an ObamaCare Exchange and of the 16 (plus the District of Columbia) which did cobble together an exchange, 13 are still in operation. However, half are in desperate financial straits as witnessed by Hawaii which will close its exchange in September.

But although the ACA made provision for recalcitrant governors and state legislators by permitting the federal government to build exchanges within their borders, it did NOT allow for federally run exchanges to provide the subsidies and tax credits without which healthcare plans would be unaffordable for a majority of businesses and individuals.

It is Section 1311 of ObamaCare which allows for providing tax credits or subsidies to certain people who purchased qualified health plans “through AN EXCHANGE ESTABLISHED BY THE STATE.”  Section 1321 – the section which regulates federally run exchanges – makes it clear that neither tax credits nor subsidies may be offered through exchanges established by the federal government. 

Quite simply:

“Congress did not authorize tax credits, subsidies to private insurance companies, or penalties on employers in states with a federal Exchange.”

“Nor did Congress grant the IRS authority to create such credits, subsidies, and penalties…”

However, in May of 2012, Barack Obama’s Internal Revenue Service decided to unilaterally change the language of the ACA and override the will of Congress by stating that the Service will have the authority to provide subsidies and tax credits to ObamaCare participants from federally run exchanges. The IRS literally rewrote the law and rescued the president’s legislation by giving itself permission to spend an estimated $800 billion taxpayer dollars over the next 10 years—dollars which were NOT authorized by congress to be spent. Incredibly, the IRS action was one of 50 changes made to the Affordable Care Act after it was written, 31 of them implemented unilaterally by the White House.

How does the Obama Regime defend implementation of an IRS rule which ignores the clear language of the ACA? By claiming that the new rule is “consistent with the intent of the law and our (Treasury Department’s) ability to interpret and implement it.”

Regardless of IRS assertions of intent, the text itself of the Affordable Care Act proves the White House claim to be an outright lie.

Moreover, Jonathan Gruber, the chief architect of ObamaCare told an audience in 2012:

“If you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits. But your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying to your citizens, you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges, and that they’ll do it.”

Congress had clearly designed ObamaCare to force the building of exchanges by the states. Even the author of the law admitted it.

How may the American public expect the Court to rule? Who can tell! The increasingly corrupt and pernicious purveyors of the legal system in the United States make predicting what should be the most straightforward of rulings virtually impossible. An irrepressible appetite to further a politically inspired agenda has replaced the Constitution as the foundation of American jurisprudence. Consider the ruling by Chief Justice John Roberts in which he flipped, flopped and somersaulted his way into transforming the individual mandate into a tax (we still don’t know what kind). And it remains unconstitutional.

Imagine providing a federal bureaucracy the power to “borrow” tax dollars, determine their use and ignore the specific, written language of the law, all for the purpose of implementing a political fix for legislation which didn’t turn out quite the way its authors had intended.

That an American court could even consider a ruling which might endorse such an abuse of power is scary as Hell. We’ll know the decision of the Supreme Court before the end of the month.