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
In addition to other abuses that have recently come to light, the IRS is attempting to tax millions of employers and individuals without congressional authorization.
Based on the White House’s past lawlessness and corruption in the service of Obamacare, I’m willing to venture the following prediction:
The CBO expects the Obama administration’s unilateral rewriting of federal law (my words, not CBO’s) will increase federal spending by $3 billion in 2014 and reduce federal revenues by a net $9 billion, thereby increasing the federal debt by $12 billion.
It’s hard to come up with a story that explains a drop in support for Obamacare only among moderates and conservatives if the legislation was considered too weak.
If Democratic support for Obamacare fell because more Democrats suddenly wish the law went farther, that drop would occur first and primarily among left-wing Democrats, not moderates and conservatives.
By every measure the President's signature piece of legislation faces tremendous setbacks. And yet, the media largely ignores the fundamental problems with the law.
Barack Obama used to oppose health care fraud—up until the moment that opposing fraud conflicted with his goal of preserving ObamaCare.
The administration could find now that its employer-mandate delay has the opposite of the desired effect.
Implementing the law without the employer mandate will definitely be very chaotic. The whole purpose of the employer mandate was to reduce the economic and political upheaval that the rest of ObamaCare will unleash.
The employer mandate is so intimately tied to the rest of the law that the IRS cannot delay it without delaying the rest of Obamacare.
New Time 11:20 AM PT: Get the Market Movements in Advance: William's Edge Webinar for Thursday April 24th, 2014 | John Ransom