Tag Archives: individual mandate

Supreme Court Orders New Hearing on Obamacare Religious School Challenge

Anti Obamacare activists given new life with U.S. Supreme Court order for new hearing on Obamacare religious school challenge

The U.S. Supreme Court has breathed new life into the anti Obamacare movement by ordering the 4th U.S. Circuit Appeals court to hear Liberty University’s challenge to the Affordable Care Act known as Obamacare. The university had brought an action against having to implement the law on the grounds of equal protection and religious freedom. President Obama insisted during the presidential campaign that religious freedom would not be inhibited or an issue for religious colleges and religious organizations would have to consider.

According to Fox News, the school is challenging being forced to provide insurance which pay for birth control against the institution’s constitutional rights. Liberty University and many opponents firmly believe that religious institutions are protected from having to adhere to this constitutional violation under the free exercise of religion clause in the First Amendment.

It appeared that many had seemingly resigned themselves to being victimized by the June U.S. Supreme Court decision as well as the recent reelection of Obama which appeared to defeat overturning the bill. But, legal sanity still prevails in the form of state leaders that are now openly opposing the merits of the law with renewed determination.

A number of republican governors are not waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court to analyze the tea leaves in order to take concerted action against this draconian and oppressive federal interventionist law. The governors refuse to have their citizens burdened as Governor Kasich of Ohio warned, “States do not have any flexibility to build and manage exchanges in ways that respond to unique needs of their citizens or markets.”

Monday, November 26th, according to Fox News’ Megyn Kelly, over 16 states have already indicated that they will not be implementing Obamacare’s health insurance exchanges in their states. In fact, Ohio governor John Kasich was joined by Texas governor Rick Perry, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Sean Parnell of Alaska, and John Heineman of Nebraska, among others in opposition to state-run health exchanges.

In effect, these governors are providing the lead for Obamacare battleground opponents who can slow down and eventually reduce the implementation of the most odorous and oppressive aspects of the bill.

Democrats who have been doing the happy dance over the reelection of President Obama should slow down that roll to a “wait and see” crawl. More and more states and their citizens will rally against full implementation of the law based upon being deprived of their right to equal protection under the 14th Amendment. Others will seek protection of their religious freedom under the 1st Amendment.

If anyone believes that this issue of the illegality of Obamacare is over because of an election, then wait and see the fallout in 2013, when tens of thousands of employers continue to either cut employee hours or lay off employees rather than go bankrupt.

In fact Newsmax reported that more than a dozen top American firms have initiated plans to cut thousands of employees due to Obamacare implementation challenges. Some of those firms include, “Smith & Nephew with 770 layoffs; and Abbott Labs plans 700 layoffs. In addition, Covidien projects 595 layoffs; and Kinetic Concepts — 427 layoffs. Dana Holding Corp, which is a global auto parts manufacturing company plan layoffs as well.”

How unique is it that a Liberty University remains in the fight for America’s liberty to not be subjected to a law that deprives Americans and religious institutions of their constitutional liberties. As Patrick Henry stated after Britain’s King George kept implementing unjust immoral laws against America’s colonial liberties,

Patrick Henry:
“Virtue, morality, and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone that renders us invincible. These are the tactics we should study. If we lose these, we are conquered, fallen indeed…so long as our manners and principles remain sound, there is no danger.”

Stand with Liberty University and stand for your family’s liberty as a gift you give for your children’s future and liberty.

( Click to let me know what you think )

Obama Individual Mandate Hypocrisy

HEALTHCARE REFORM

On the campaign trail in Cincinnati, President Obama criticized Mitt Romney for flip-flopping his position on the indivudal mandate, apparently because of displeasure among the right wing Washington elites. Obama stated that as governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney supported an individual mandate, then suddenly reversed his position because of right wing pressure:

“And the fact that a whole bunch of Republicans in Washington suddenly said, this is a tax — for six years he said it wasn’t, and now he has suddenly reversed himself. So the question becomes, are you doing that because of politics? Are you abandoning a principle that you fought for, for six years simply because you’re getting pressure for two days from Rush Limbaugh or some critics in Washington?

However, Mitt Romney has never fought for the so-called principle of an individual mandate on a national level.He’s never renounced the individual mandate in Romneycare,  to the chagrin of much of the Republican electorate. In every Republican debate this year, he firmly defended the individual mandate, but on a state level. Romney believes healthcare, and a purchase mandate in particular, is a program states should decide to implement. He has never backed down from that position, despite criticism from right-wing figures like Rush Limbaugh, and he’s never supported a national purchase mandate. In essence, he’s never flip-flopped on the issue.

The same, however, cannot be said for Obama’s position on federal purchase mandates.

As a presidential candidate in 2008, in an interview with CNN, he strongly dismissed the idea of an individual mandate.

So, who is abandoning principles Mr. President? Mitt Romney, who at least seems to grasp the concept of federalism, or you, whose position has completely flipped over the past 4 years?

 

The scariest of outcomes for Obamacare

US Supreme Court

One possible outcome of the Obamacare ruling is particularly worrisome – finding only the individual mandate unconstitutional, but not why you think.

Tomorrow morning every news agency, media outlet, pundit and analyst will be eagerly awaiting the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare. While I sincerely hope that the whole thing is turned into a 2,700 page footnote in history, I am concerned that what will survive will lead to a socialist healthcare system in America because healthcare insurance companies (payers) will no longer be able to function.

If only the individual mandate is struck down, but the remaining provisions left in-tact, insurance companies will be forced to seek those costs from the few non-pre-existing customers left – us. Our premiums will “necessarily skyrocket” to cover the costs associated with those regulations. Here’s how it works:

The requirement that insurers must offer coverage to those with pre-existing conditions at a “fair price” means people no longer have to need to carry  insurance while they are healthy. They only need purchase it when they get cancer, get really hurt in a car accident, fall off a ladder or whatever. Then they can just jump on to our health plan at near the costs the rest of us pay.  So they magically get $10,000 or more in urgent care, critical care, surgery, x-rays, MRIs, CAT scans, hospital stay, post-care and more while having paid only one month’s premiums into the risk pool. Where does the rest of those tens of thousands of dollars come from? Easy – the rest of the middle class who has been dutifully over-paying for too much coverage so that Freddie Freeloader can then drop his coverage after he’s healed up from his drunken-binge car wreck.

Why would anyone carry coverage until they get really sick or hurt? Just pay doctor’s visits out of pocket until you get really sick or hurt, then just jump on a plan for a few months until you’re better then leave. As this behavior increases so will premiums – the money has to come from somewhere. In time, no one will keep insurance long-term which will precipitate the demise of insurance payers – at least in their current form.

Most middle and low-income earners don’t treat healthcare like a responsibility. They don’t put away for future expenses like they do for college or retirement because insurers do that for them. The next logical step for insurance companies will likely turn their worlds upside-down – payers won’t be paying first anymore.

I would expect that payers will go to only high-deductible plans. They will exist in tiers so that the higher your deductible, the smaller your premium. This might allow them to charge incredible premiums for low-deductible plans so that even those with pre-exiting conditions have to pay the initial five, six, ten or twenty thousand dollars of expenses out of their own pockets before the payer starts kicking in.

Employers may choose to no longer provide coverage as the premium increases make it impossible for them to operate their businesses. Americans will have to provide for themselves. The noise from the electorate will increase in volume demanding that something be done about the insurance company profits and Congress will swoop in to rescue them. Voila – single payer, government-provided health care is born at the demand of the American people.

This was the intent of the law from its inception. Kill the payers, enrage the voters, become the only answer to a problem Congress created. The Supreme Court may just speed up what was the ultimate goal.