During oral arguments in King v. Burwell on Wednesday, Justice Anthony Kennedy expressed skepticism about the governments claim that the Supreme Court should defer to the Internal Revenue Services interpretation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Members of Congress who voted for the PPACA most recently Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) and former Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) now swear it was never their intent to condition Exchange subsidies on state cooperation.
Something to keep in mind when contemplating the impact of King v. Burwell.
By mid-2015, 5 million HealthCare.gov enrollees could see their tax liabilities increase by thousands of dollars. Their premiums could increase by 300 percent or more. Their health plans could be cancelled without any replacement plans available.
The case is North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC, and involves actions taken by that states dental board to prevent non-dentists from providing teeth-whitening services.
Under the Sissel panels ruling, no bills would ever be considered revenue measures because all revenue measures ultimately serve some other purpose.
Three years ago, we blew the whistle on the government behavior now being challenged in multiple Obamacare lawsuits.
As an economist might put it, this means there are likely to be policies out there that could save a lot more lives than RomneyCare does per dollar spent.
The more Americans figure out that Obamacare has made free—riding safer than ever, the more exchange enrollments will fall, posing a serious threat to Obamacare’s future.
I get viscerally anxious when I hear from intelligent, responsible people that they have dropped their family’s health insurance because Obamacare so significantly increased their premiums. But I cannot dispute that Obamacare has made that choice safer and more rational than ever before.
Federal courts may soon rule that President Obama induced the majority of those enrollees to enroll by offering them taxpayer dollars he has no legal authority to spend
In anticipation of the hearing, the Wall Street Journal wrote a lengthy editorial explaining the issues.
I summarize a lengthy report issued by two congressional committees on how the Treasury Department, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Department of Health and Human Services conspired to create a new entitlement program that is authorized nowhere in federal law.
A Wall Street Journal editorial surmises that Senate Democrats eliminated the filibuster for non-Supreme Court judicial appointments so they could pack the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit with judges that would block an important ObamaCare case called Halbig v. Sebelius.
The people’s elected representatives must clear certain hurdles — some as high as IPAB wishes to set them — if they want to retain their authority as the ones who write laws regarding health care.
The U.S. Senate’s deployment of the “nuclear option” — lowering the threshold for approval of non-Supreme Court presidential nominees from 60 votes to 51 votes — will enhance the ability of the president and his party to control the health care sector well after he leaves office.
Last week, I discussed the importance of generating additional legal challenges to the IRS’s attempt to tax, borrow, and spend $700 billion, under the rubric of ObamaCare, yet contrary to the clear language of the statute and Congress’ intent.
Four lawsuits have already been filed to challenge those illegal taxes and spending. A ruling for any of these plaintiffs would make the problems with ObamaCare’s decrepit HealthCare.gov web site look like a hiccup.
Tthe Treasury department has still refused to hand over many emails and other communications that, according to my source, show the IRS did almost no analysis of the law before deciding to tax, borrow, and spend $700 billion without congressional authorization.
Remember this the next time someone says that people on Medicaid have no other options