Federal Appeals Court Ruling Against Obamacare subsidies: An Excuse for Another Attack Against the Image of Conservatives?

July 25, 2014

Earlier this week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the federal government may not subsidize health insurance plans bought by people in states that decided not to set up their own marketplaces under the health care law. That is, in 27 states (and seven others that have partnership exchanges) that opted out of setting up exchanges, the court says that it is illegal to provide federal tax credit subsidies for insurance plans in those states.

The new White House spokesman, Josh Earnest, has criticized the ruling, saying, “You don’t need a fancy legal degree to understand that Congress intended for every eligible American to have access to tax credits that would lower their health care costs, regardless of whether it was state officials or federal officials who were running the marketplace.”

Earnest is right on one point; you don’t have to have a “fancy law degree” to understand what the law says. The problem is that, while intent does need to be take into consideration for understanding a law, the actual wording still carries most of the weight.

In 26 U.S. Code § 36B -Refundable credit for coverage under a qualified health plan, it says (and pay close attention to subsection A):

(2) Premium assistance amount
The premium assistance amount determined under this subsection 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 taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 [1] 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.

The language is clearly referencing state run exchanges specifically. Earnest wants to assume that the Democrats intended Americans to have access to tax credits, no matter where the exchange was run from, but I see a different intent in their actions. It seems to me that the Democrats tried to be overly clever with their wording in order to force all states to comply and set up those states that opted out to be punished by the law in order to keep them in line. After all, it’s been standard operating procedure for the Democrats, especially during the Obama presidency, to cause a great deal of pain for the average citizen and then blame that pain on the Republicans in order to turn people against the GOP. What better way to do this than to implement a program where everybody is forced to buy into it and if they don’t, they’re punished for not complying. Then, when a state decides to opt out, the citizens are punished and blame is placed squarely on the shoulders of their elected officials (normally Republicans) who chose to stand against something as horrible as Obamacare on behalf of those same citizens.

It’s actually a fairly typical strong arm tactic. Where a criminal might threaten your safely or that of your family, the government is threatening our state elected officials with the possible loss of their voter base. It’s a case of, “Do what I say or else.”

Circuit Judge Thomas B. Griffith wrote, “At least until states that wish to can set up Exchanges, our ruling will likely have significant consequences both for the millions of individuals receiving tax credits through federal Exchanges and for health insurance markets more broadly.” Whether or not Judge Griffith meant it this way or not, the narrative that the left is going to latch onto is clear in this statement. These states must comply with Obamacare or their citizens will be hurt. Further, the liberals can then glue their halos back onto the points of their horns and decry these conservative meanies; they created this wonderful health care system with the sole motivation being to help the American people (right into a pauper’s prison with bars constructed out of entitlements and dependency) and these villains came along to fight against anything our poor, virtuous president does solely because these slavering beasts, who insist on clinging to their guns and religion, can’t stand the thought of a black man in the White House. You’ve heard all this before…it’s like a game of ‘Telephone’ where the message is repeated verbatim every time. It’s almost like the message is being repeated and spread by an army of automatons instead of people…but that’s probably a subject for another article.

So, let me be clear on the conservative point of view on this case, at least for myself and I suspect for the majority of conservatives: Yes; anything that damages and pushes Obamacare closer to repeal is a very good thing, but, no; conservatives are not rejoicing at people being hurt by this court decision, should it stand. The motivation for the right to oppose Obamacare is that it will cause and, in fact already is, causing damage; to companies and employers, to employees, to the rich, but especially to the middle and lower classes. Nothing truly positive can come from something like this that forces people to become consumers of a product, that forces employers to provide services even if those services violate their God given rights and that creates and encourages a system of dependence and discourages excellence and innovation. That is what Obamacare is ultimately about.

No matter how much liberals want to spread the lies that conservatives don’t care about anyone other than corporations and the rich, the truth can’t just be washed away by their loud voices coming from a multitude of directions. There are solid reasons to oppose Obamacare and, because it is a program worthy of being opposed, even the smallest damage caused to it should be counted as a small victory. True conservatives will continue to hold the administration to adhere to the specifics and wording of the law so that people will fully see how horrible it is and that ‘fixing’ and ‘tweaking’ of the passed law are not only not going to make things better, but is illegal. Of course, ultimately, the true victory comes when every vestige of Obamacare is wiped away so that a good system can be built up in its place; one that will encourage economic growth and the desire to excel instead of limiting it and that will protect and help those in serious medical need instead of throwing them to the dogs because they’d be too much of a drain on the system.

It’s true that these legal setbacks, like this decision and the Supreme Court ‘Hobby Lobby’ decision, are affirmations that Obamacare is hurting people and that the Obama administration cannot simply rewrite this bad law as they go to fit their needs or to quiet their critics. There are 6.7 million people, according to the administration, who are getting tax credits to be able to pay their premiums for insurance policies on the exchanges. Yet, they still want to use the word ‘affordable’ in the name of the law. There is nothing affordable about anything that requires that kind of massive financial assistance just to pay premiums. I’ve had different kinds of insurance over my life and I’ve never had to take out a loan or ask the federal government for financial aid to pay my premiums…but maybe I’m just abnormal in today’s America of Obama, Hillary, Reid and Pelosi.

The bigger picture, though, is that Obamacare is simply bad law. One judge on this court, Harry Edwards, in his dissenting opinion wrote, “This case is about Appellants’ not-so-veiled attempt to gut the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” I submit that the efforts to gut and also to repeal the ACA are not veiled at all, nor should they be. This law has no place in a country like ours and true Americans who understand how horrid this law is should not stop until it has been removed from the books and exists as nothing more than a cautionary tale of what not to do with our health system.

* This current case is far from being resolved, as the Court of Appeals in Virginia ruled hours later that the subsidies were legal and proper, no matter how the exchange was set up. This could lead to yet another case involving Obamacare being brought before the Supreme Court.

Randy Lynch


More Corruption From Our Elected Officials (Ray Nagin convicted)

(Photo: Associated Press)

(Photo: Associated Press)

More Corruption From Our Elected Officials

July 9, 2014

-Randy Lynch

Former New Orleans mayor, Ray Nagin, was convicted today on 20 counts of corruption, including fraud, bribery, money laundering and tax evasion before and after Hurricane Katrina. He has been sentenced to ten years in federal prison and ordered to pay $82,000 in restitution. Nagin accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes, including not only money, but also free vacation trips and truckloads of free granite for his family business.

While I’m not saying that there are no corrupt Republicans because, obviously there are, the majority of these types of corruption cases, from Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s 14 year sentence for eight counts of corruption to U.S. Representative Charles Rangel’s (D-NY) conviction on 11 ethics violations in Congress to California State Senator Leland Yee’s charges of, among other things, gun running, involve Democrats. It’s true that Republicans also get caught with their hand in the proverbial cookie jar. Just look at the current situation in Mississippi with Senate candidate and incumbent Thad Cochran and the voter fraud charges against him. Like so many others with an ‘R’ by their name who have become embroiled in this kind of wrongdoing, Cochran has been immersed in the same liberal-dominated environment as his colleagues with ‘D’s by their names. In fact, his practices in the Republican primary against Tea Party candidate, Chris McDaniel, were much more typical of the Democrat Party than the GOP. For me, I see very little difference philosophically between someone like Thad Cochran and someone like Ray Nagin or Charlie Rangel.

The question in my mind is: Why is this sort of thing becoming so much more prevalent? I would argue that, especially with Democrats, we are seeing the consequences of their embracing and promoting of the entitlement mentality that they’ve championed for so many years. If your average American (and in some cases, illegal immigrant) deserves and is entitled to money, services and things regardless of whether they actually do anything to earn them or not, how can that thought process not translate over to those who consider themselves the political elite of our society? If they want, they’ll reason, they should be able to just take, especially if it’s being offered to them by others. After all, they do work that contributes to the ‘greater good’, so that should balance out against the occasional violation of the laws that many of them feel that, as legislators, they should be exempt from anyway.

Besides the dangers of our elected officials using their positions to consciously impose tyranny upon us, there is also the insidious danger of becoming desensitized to moral and legal absolutes when they come into conflict with our growing “I want…I need…I deserve” mentality. It’s really not such a stretch since the government regularly engages in theft, taking larger and larger amounts of money from those who earned it in order to funnel that it into whatever programs or purposes they deem to be deserving, sometimes even having the gall to call this theft “charity”.

Add to that the government’s most recent foray into both theft and control through intimidation known as Obamacare. This is a program designed to force every citizen to buy something (in this case, insurance) whether they want it or not. It rips away anything (what Obama refers to as ‘inferior plans’) that people have decided they want and have spent their own money to acquire if it doesn’t meet the standards set by these elites in Washington. It has also demanded that employers meet the needs that the government has decided are vital, even when those demands violate the liberties of those employers. Thankfully, the Supreme Court has offered up at least a small amount of opposition to this last part.

It’s these sorts of practices, plus things like the intimidation tactics of the IRS against conservative groups, the huge data mining operations by the NSA and the blatant circumventing of our governmental system by Obama with his phone and pen that would gain the respect of the likes of Al Capone, were he alive today. He might even go into politics to get his piece of this very dirty pie, assuming that he could put aside his own conscience to do so.

So, the question that we all have to ask is, what do we do about, not only the blatant disregard for morality, decency and the law by our elected officials, but what do we do about the liberal mindset that has created an atmosphere where these sorts of actions aren’t seen as being such a big deal as they would have been in the past. For me, that answer is simple: Dissipate the entitlement/victimhood mentality that has been used to explain away the demotivation of our citizens and to justify acts that once we would’ve considered deplorable and unthinkable and replace it with an atmosphere inspired by our founding fathers and those that came after to build on those original concepts and the sense of American exceptionalism that all that effort led to.