As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Tag Archives: Obamacare

Bill Would Force Supreme Court to Enroll in Obamacare

Please, God, make this happen.

From The Hill:

A House Republican on Thursday proposed forcing the Supreme Court justices and their staff to enroll in ObamaCare.

Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas) said that his SCOTUScare Act would make all nine justices and their employees join the national healthcare law’s exchanges.

“As the Supreme Court continues to ignore the letter of the law, it’s important that these six individuals understand the full impact of their decisions on the American people,” he said.

“That’s why I introduced the SCOTUScare Act to require the Supreme Court and all of its employees to sign up for ObamaCare,” Babin said.

Babin’s potential legislation would only let the federal government provide healthcare to the Supreme Court and its staff via ObamaCare exchanges.

“By eliminating their exemption from ObamaCare, they will see firsthand what the American people are forced to live with,” he added.

Roberts to Teach Creative Writing Class

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts will begin teaching creative writing at Accidental University in California beginning July 15th, according to a statement released Thursday by his office.

The statement actually said Roberts would start “July 14th,” but the chief justice’s office subsequently put out a clarification that the intent was to say “July 15th.”

The university is coincidentally the alma mater of President Barack Obama, who is an Accidental graduate.

Accidental University President Hank McHenry said in a statement that the university was “deeply honored” to have someone of Roberts’ “proven writing skills” teaching undergraduates.

“Justice Roberts has demonstrated an obvious flair for creative writing with respect to the Affordable Care Act,” McHenry said. “Twice now, he has rewritten important aspects of Obamacare, changing sections regarding penalties into sections regarding taxes and adding ‘or the federal government’ to the formerly prosaic phrase ‘established by the states.’ With just small strokes of his pen, Justice Roberts has been creating brand new laws with consequences that will reverberate for decades, if not centuries.”

In a brief interview in his office, where he was sipping chamomile and dropping copies of the Constitution into his shredder, Roberts said creative writing had been a lifelong goal.

“I’ve been doing this left-brain legal stuff all my life. Now, Obamacare has given me a chance to tap into my right-brain potential, allowing me the freedom to move away from rationally interpreting laws toward rewriting them in a way my old, reason-enslaved self could never have imagined.”

Attempts to obtain a response from James Madison were unsuccessful. Madison had rolled over in his grave and from his new position was unable to comment.

Video || Obama Celebrates Defeat of “Partisan” Challenge

Wait. Sorry, wrong one.

The correct one is below. Here’s some verbiage from it:

After the dust has settled, there can be no doubt that this law is working . . . After multiple challenges to this law before the Supreme Court, the Affordable Care Act is here to stay. This morning, the court upheld a critical part of this law, the part that’s made it easier for Americans to afford health insurance regardless of where you live.

If the partisan challenge to this law had succeeded, millions of Americans would have had thousands of dollars worth of tax credits taken from them . . . America would have gone backwards. That’s not what we do. That’s not what America does. We move forward.

Everything and everyone opposing Obama is partisan, in his mind – not advancing on any kind of principle, such as, for example, that laws actually mean what they say. Everything and everyone with a contrary idea to Obama wants to “move backwards,” no matter that moving forward in directions set by Obama either so often steps us off a cliff or moves so many Americans harmed by his policies in the wrong direction.

Obamacare will usher in the gradual destruction of health care for average Americans, raising their costs and their taxes, depleting the quality of care, and leading to health care rationing. There were other ways to provide greater access to health insurance without mandating coverage and having the government set the rules.

Americans of current and future generations will suffer and die because of this law. And that, folks, is what is called moving backwards.

Court Rules for Administration on Obamacare, Upholds Subsidies

By a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court Thursday announced a decision upholding the Obamacare law, ruling that those who get health insurance through federal exchanges are eligible for tax subsidies. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion for the Court, affirming the decision of the Fourth Circuit court of appeals in the case of King v. Burwell.

Roberts wrote:

In this instance, the context and structure of the act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase . . . Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.

The case was over language in the law which stated that only those who buy their insurance in state-run exchanges would qualify for subsidies. Supporters of the law argued that this was a mistake, and that the law was clearly intended to cover those who enlisted on the federal exchange. The Justices clearly agreed.

As he did the last time Obamacare was challenged, Roberts joined liberals on the Court in upholding the law. But so this time did Anthony Kennedy, who in the previous case had voted to strike down key elements of the statute. Justices Alito, Thomas, and Scalia all said the plain language of the law, which denies subsidies to those not on state exchanges, should be adhered to.

Scalia wrote the dissent. He said the law should now be called “SCOTUScare.”

Had Obamacare opponents prevailed, the results could have been devastating for the law. According to the Associated Press:

Nationally, 10.2 million people have signed up for health insurance under the Obama health overhaul. That includes the 8.7 million people who are receiving an average subsidy of $272 a month to help pay their insurance premiums. Of those receiving subsidies, 6.4 million people were at risk of losing that aid because they live in states that did not set up their own health insurance exchanges.

As expected, Kagan, Sotomoyer, Ginsburg and Breyer all agreed that those on federal exchanges should receive subsidies.

Obama Tries to Bully Court Into Ruling for Obamacare

Because that’s the Chicago way.

President Obama Monday continued to the White House tactic – begun last week by Josh Earnest,  and echoing tactics used during the last Obamacare case – of trying to bully the Supreme Court into siding with his position on Obamacare in a case that will be decided within days.

Obama spoke during a press conference in German at the end of the G-8.

What I can tell state leaders is, is that under well-established precedent, there is no reason why the existing exchanges should be overturned through a court case. It has been well documented that those who passed this legislation never intended for folks who were going through the federal exchange not to have their citizens get subsidies.

And under well-established statutory interpretation, approaches that have been repeatedly employed — not just by liberal, Democratic judges, but by conservative judges like some on the current Supreme Court — you interpret a statute based on what the intent and meaning and the overall structure of the statute provides for.

And so this should be an easy case. Frankly, it probably shouldn’t even have been taken up. And since we’re going to get a ruling pretty quick, I think it’s important for us to go ahead and assume that the Supreme Court is going to do what most legal scholars who’ve looked at this would expect them to do.

I’m optimistic that the Supreme Court will play it straight when it comes to the interpretation.

I’ve seen some headlines about Obama’s frustration boiling over and so forth. This has nothing to do with frustration. It’s a considered tactic designed to try to intimidate the Court into doing what the president wants. Note how he specifically targets not just the merits of the case, but goes straight after the Court, questioning why it even took the case and warning it to do the right thing, see? – thug style.

If George W. Bush did this, the media would be harrumphing about Separation of Powers and that the Constitution was about to crumble into pieces. But everyone knows Obama walks on water and is only sticking up for what’s right.

He does walk on water, you know. I saw it. He was on the fourth hole at Andrews last year and he drove his ball right into the pond, walked out, and retrieved it, without getting the least bit wet.

Now if God could only help him with his swing.

White House Begins to Bully the Supreme Court Again

In an echo of the last time the Supreme Court held the fate of the Affordable Care Act in its hands, the White House today began warning the Court of the kind of rhetoric it would face if it eviscerates the crown jewel of President Obama’s presidency.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest today suggested that the Court would be responsible for wrecking the U.S. health care system by undermining Obamacare should it take the side of Plaintiffs in the King v. Burwell case, a decision to be handed down this month that would invalidate the federal Obamacare health insurance exchanges used by 37 states.

Earnest said:

If the Supreme Court were to throw the health care system in this country into utter chaos, there would be no easy solution for solving that problem because it would likely require an act of Congress in order to address that situation.

Note the careful phrasing here. Earnest is laying culpability on the Supreme Court, when all the Court would be doing is to decide that Congress failed to provide subsidies for federally-created exchanges, as opposed to those created by the state.

The tactic harkens back to April 2012, when Obama indicated he would attack the Court if it failed to uphold Obamacare during a challenge to the law that year:

Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.

In fact, CBS News later reported that Chief Justice John Roberts did change his opinion, allowing the law to survive by a 5-4 majority, and that he was concerned about damage to the Court.

CBS “Research Department” Apparently Located in West Wing

CBS News Monday helped celebrate the fifth anniversary of Obamacare by citing a statistic it said its “research department” had uncovered. Note, in the video below, the citation in small print for the news that 16 million Americans had been insured under the law. It says, “Source: The White House.” Here’s where the research came… Continue Reading

Obama “Keep Your Insurance” Estimate Off by 10 million

Under Obamacare, 10 million people will lose their employer-provided insurance by 2021 – or one out of sixteen workers – a number that is ten times the original estimate, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The CBO also estimates that 31 million people will remain uninsured despite a price tag of $2 trillion, begging the… Continue Reading

The Latest Gruber Video

It’s not exactly what you think. And BTW, notice whom else he thanks. Romney is smart, but the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., that old Fox, was smarter. He used Romney to set in motion the process that led to the Affordable Care Act and eventually, perhaps, Kennedy’s decades-old vision of universal, single payer coverage. Continue Reading

Uriah Heep Comes Before Congress

“When I was quite a young boy . . . I got to know what umbleness did, and I took to it. I ate umble pie with an appetite. I stopped at the umble point of my learning, and says I, ‘Hard hard!’ When you offered to teach me Latin, I knew better.” Jonathan Gruber… Continue Reading