novatownhall blog

Where you are held accountable for your convictions and record

Browsing Posts in Health Care

The text of the law is clear

SEC. 1401. REFUNDABLE TAX CREDIT PROVIDING PREMIUM ASSISTANCE FOR COVERAGE UNDER A QUALIFIED HEALTH PLAN.

……………

(8)(2) PREMIUM ASSISTANCE AMOUNT.—The prem-
ium assistance amount determined under this sub-
section with respect to any coverage month is the
amount equal to the lesser of—

(A) the monthly premiums for such month
for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in
the individual market within a State which
cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any
dependent (as defined in section 152) of the tax-
payer and which were enrolled in through an
Exchange established by the State under 1311 of
the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,

or
(B) the excess (if any) of—
(i) the adjusted monthly premium for
such month for the applicable second lowest
cost silver plan with respect to the taxpayer,
over
(ii) an amount equal to 1/12 of the
product of the applicable percentage and the
taxpayer’s household income for the taxable
year.

It looks, at first glance, that part A does not obtain, since there is no such exchange, and so there is only part B.  However, lower down, part B is clarified:

(8)(3)(B) APPLICABLE SECOND LOWEST COST
SILVER PLAN.—The applicable second lowest cost
silver plan with respect to any applicable tax-
payer is the second lowest cost silver plan of the
individual market in the rating area in which
the taxpayer resides which—
(i) is offered through the same Ex-
change through which the qualified health
plans taken into account under paragraph
8 (2)(A) were offered….

That’s definitely a problem.  Neither of the two possible pricing options to determine the subsidy exists.

Some pundits have said it comes down to ONE word, “by”, not four words, “established by the State.”  The fact is, it is FOURTEEN words: “established by the State under 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”

The Federal Exchange is defined in section 1103, not 1311.

So what will the Supremes do?

Well, we know the progs on the bench will ignore the law — progs don’t care about laws.  (Well, they don’t care about laws they don’t like.  If they like a law, they’ll dig in like a tick on a hound.)  So the progs will rule to uphold the subsidies, and the conservatives will vote to uphold the law as written.

I expect the swing votes to go to the progs.  Why?  Because they have shown no integrity.  When Roberts ruled that the penalty is NOT a tax and thus the Supremes can rule on it before anyone actually pays it, then rule that it IS a tax and thus it is constitutional (the first time the Supremes have overturned a prior decision in the same decision), he has signaled to the world that he has no logical integrity, and is thus really a prog.  He will rule to uphold the subsidies and write up another steaming pile to support that ruling.

So all this time that the “informed” have been telling you that Obamacare is a scam, no one wants to listen. The Senate and House said the bill needed to be passed in order to find out what is in it……like it is a present waiting to be opened. So now, one of the chief architects decides to shoot of his mouth and rub it in your stupid faces; very bluntly, I might add. Remember, this is the superior Democrat party that knows what is best for everyone. Why? Because they feel the American people are too stupid to know what is best for them. In a sense, this statement is partially true. Those stupid voters that continue to believe the lies and vote Dem prove it every election. But what this video proves to me is that those individuals that voted for this bill in Congress are even more stupid than the American populace being besmirched here. They had a closed door meeting or two and we’re told that it was a way to get the poor health insurance and would also put these politicians in high regard with the people. Yup, the last couple elections proved that one. So we know that those who passed Obamacare in Congress lied, Emmanual lied. Gruber lied. The chief liar Obama did what he does best—he lied also. Good case for repeal. Better case for forcing vacancies in political positions. Best case to put members of the Congress and the administration, as well private contributors to this bill, in residence at the grey bar hotel. How much more do we need to eliminate this bad law?

I apologize for the lack of posts recently. Old ACT has been having multiple medical issues needing immediate attention and, although I love this blog, staying SUNNY-side up is my number one priority (Mama’s also). As the saying goes, when it rains, it pours. Always looking to have you excellent commenters write some posts now and again. If it is worth saying, it is worth your opinion and take on matters. No, I don’t pay for posts but you will always have my gratitude. That said and while we are on the subject of medicine, I have wanted to address this issue for many days now.

It appears that a very active and detrimental virus is starting to sweep the nation. The Enterovirus 68 is what is at hand. It was first found in California in 1962. It appears to stem from a form of hand-foot-mouth disease with a steroid kicker. Follow my bouncing ball here. The typical season is between July to October and is spread, like most other viruses, through children in the school system. An article on its spread is here. No one seems to understand or wants to speculate why it has cropped up in 10 states and coming to a state near you. Well, I’m going to speculate on everything I know and have read.

Third world countries have poor healthcare where most of the citizens do not receive care needed for certain illnesses until they have escalated to an advanced stage. This country of ours is seeing more cases of virus and diseases which have long ago been completely controlled or eradicated. Why? Because of the mode of transportation in and out of our country. Health record documents and immunizations seem to be a thing of the past. Oh, we will get these things done when traveling to a high risk country so that we don’t get or bring back these cooties. But what about foreign travelers? And what about the illegals pouring through our non-existent borders? I think I am on to something here. Americans are incurring an influx of disease on an extraordinary scale, all brought to us by our lackadaisical, incompetent and corrupt government. Period. Now that I have dropped this steaming blivit at your feet, prove me wrong. Only a liberal could spin this one. Although there could always be another answer (that could be correct), the data out there gravitates to what I have stated above. It can only get worse, folks.

Oh, yes, the time is long overdue to have term limits on Congress and judges. Why would we only limit the Executive Branch without having the same constraints on the Legislative and Judicial branches? Why indeed. It appears that the need of limits is really making its case known in these modern times. You see, politics is a “scratch your back, you scratch mine” type of forum. Unfortunately, bias does not belong in any of these branches and when the party trumps the people, the system is surely broken. Case in point is the recent decision on subsidies for ObamaCare sign-ups.

It appears that two conflicting court decisions are at issue: the U.S. District Court (just below the Supreme Court) where a 2-1 decision was handed down stating that subsidies could only be given through state exchanges. By the way; this court had 4 Obama judge appointments placed after Harry Reid invoked the nuclear option in the Senate. The other court, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ( which is supposedly equal to the District Court ) held that the subsides could be granted by HealthCare.gov. What the 4th based there opinion (why would they have an opinion and not a sound ruling?) on is that Congress (read Dems ONLY) had the INTENT to make subsides available for all. Unfortunately, that is not what the law READS.

Here is my beef. We are no longer a nation ruled BY LAW. We have become a nation ruled by the intent of someone’s opinion of how they interpret the meaning of someone else’s thought. Words use to have meaning but, if you read this site enough, you will realize that Dems/liberals don’t use definitive definitions but, rather, however something should be interpreted at the time (which seems to change as constantly as wind direction). So it appears that all branches of government have been corrupted and no longer seem to function as their assigned duties prescribe. An old joke: “What do you call 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?” Answer: “A good start!” Don’t get me wrong; lawyers were a needed and noble profession once. Anymore it is a stepping stone for self glorification. It has become corrupted in too many ways and lawyers are ever mindful of side-stepping the rule of law and perverting it. This isn’t the entire profession but a good portion of it. It seems that those same lawyers become judges…..with political ideology and leanings, where law is NOW being made instead of interpreted AS WRITTEN. There is no separation of powers anymore because we no longer have checks and balances as established by the Constitution. Since lawyers won’t clean up their own house, term limits, review boards for misconduct and dismissals are our next line of defense.

Yes, the left is going bonkers for Ginsberg’s “blistering” dissent from the Supreme Court majority’s ruling in Burwell v Hobby Lobby.

Let’s take those “8 Best Lines” seriatim:

Ginsburg wrote that her five male colleagues, “in a decision of startling breadth,” would allow corporations to opt out of almost any law that they find “incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

The first thing to note is that Dana Liebelson does not consider Justice Breyer male. Interesting. Maybe she knows something we don’t.

But be that as it may, if such laws are incompatible with sincerely held religious beliefs, then they are clearly in violation of the First Amendment unless they protect the rights of others, and should be overturned by the Court. But then, the requirement from which Hobby Lobby and Conestoga won relief is NOT A LAW. It is merely a REGULATION written by a nameless bureaucrat. Also, the regulation does not protect anyone’s rights — the employees of these companies can still obtain the abortifacients they desire.

The exemption sought by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga would…deny legions of women who do not hold their employers’ beliefs access to contraceptive coverage.

Those women obviously have jobs, or this would not be an issue. Therefore, they can pay for them themselves.

Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community.

Irrelevant — they can go work for someone else if they do not like their employer’s benefits package.

Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby’s or Conestoga’s plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman’s autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults.

In which case, it should be her autonomous PAYMENT, too. If you want to choose the tune, you can choose to pay the piper.

It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month’s full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage.

No, it really doesn’t “bear note”. If one cannot afford an IUD, one can choose to use other forms of birth control. Or, choose not to have vaginal sex.

Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision.

Sure. Why not? Again — if you don’t like it, get another job.

Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be ‘perceived as favoring one religion over another,’ the very ‘risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.

Well, that’s easy — just approve them all. Duh.

The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield.

No — it is the legislature (in passing the law in the first place) that planted the mines, and the executive branch (in writing such heinous regulations) that is going for a stroll therein. They deserve to have it blow up in their faces.

I always have issue with not broadening rule on cases to stave out like cases. Narrowly put, the SCOTUS ruled that you cannot force someone to go against their religious beliefs; in essence. The liberals are livid. Ginsburger had the descent. Why is it that liberals think the Constitution doesn’t mean what it says, but rather has some hidden meaning that only they can decipher? I, personally, trust the Constitution’s understanding and believe the SCOTUS interpreted things correctly. This was a no-brainer from the beginning so I really don’t want to focus so much on the outcome but rather the process these things go through.

This suit started back in September 2012. It took that long to work up to the SCOTUS for ruling. During that period, healthcare was forced in full upon Hobby Lobby. Monies were taken but no restitution will be made back to Hobby Lobby. And what would have happened if the SCOTUS didn’t take the case? It would have been ruled from a lower court, where justice rarely comes to past since too many judges are completely political. My point is this: if the U.S. Government changes a law illegally, or takes executive action, from the initial time to its final conclusion, many lives and businesses are changed. Some will not come back to where they were before the acts were instituted. Time lost, money lost, goals not met, lives hurt or ruined. And where is the restitution? And where are the penalties, fines, incarcerations for the people and entities that caused the problem in the first place? Saying,things were done in good faith and on sound advice does not hold water when the effects put people in ruination. And what is to stop them from doing something similar tomorrow, to where we have to wait 2 years or more to get a final outcome? There must always be severe consequences to curtail this type of flagrant abuse. Yet, on the left, all I hear is silence on these type issues.

Now that many of the Democrat base in Congress voiced their disapproval of the VA scandal and for the resignation of Shinseki, they feel that the heat will be lifted off the party (as my logic dictates to me). Finally, a head of a department in this administration has been held responsible even though it was a resignation instead of a firing, which is what should have happened. And Obama says “Last week I said that if we found misconduct, it would be punished, and I meant it.” Yeah, well, how many times have we heard that empty rhetoric? And, for a problem that has existed before he became president, and the promise to fix when campaigning and every year hence, what got fixed? I believe the VA should close shop. Take all the employees and put them on the unemployment line. Use all the money saved and sign every Vet up on a FREE Obamacare policy–doctor and hospital restrictions and all. Moving from one government run program to another doesn’t seem like a smart move but at least it will give the same benefits to the Vets that every American has: lack of doctors; lack of hospitals; lack of all available care and procedures. It isn’t that I hate the Vets but the healthcare system of today. This would give the final death nell needed to go forward with a good, workable system.