Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $29,049
33%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 33% is in!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Keyword: halbig

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Poll: 64% want Congress to restore ObamaCare subsidies even if Republicans win the Halbig case

    01/28/2015 2:04:31 PM PST · by SeekAndFind · 52 replies
    Hotair ^ | 01/28/2015 | AllahPundit
    Remember the issue in Halbig? There’s a section in the ObamaCare statute that says federal subsidies to pay premiums are available to anyone who buys their insurance through “an Exchange established by the State.” But that phrase is vaguely worded. Is the federal ObamaCare exchange, Healthcare.gov, an exchange established by the state? Or was the idea that subsidies should apply only to exchanges created by the individual states, as an economic incentive to encourage state governments to create their own insurance marketplaces? You know what Jonathan Gruber thinks, or thought, about that. By this summer, we’ll know what John...
  • Questions on the House Vote to Tweak ObamaCares Employer Mandate

    01/10/2015 1:52:05 PM PST · by Ray76 · 18 replies
    Cato Institute ^ | Jan 7, 2015 | Michael F. Cannon
    Tomorrow, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives will vote on a measure that would alter the definition of full-time work, for purposes of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Acts employer mandate, from 30 hours per week to 40 hours per week. I have a few questions about this supposed threat to ObamaCare: This legislation would reduce the burden of ObamaCares employer mandatem but it would also increase government spending by making more workers eligible for health-insurance subsidies through ObamaCares Exchanges. How is that a policy victory?The legislation would therefore shift part of ObamaCares costfrom an organized and influential interest group...
  • 87% of new Obamacare users given federal aid

    12/30/2014 12:19:43 PM PST · by Ray76 · 29 replies
    Washington Examiner ^ | Dec 30, 2014 | Paul Bedard
    Some 87 percent of people who just signed up for Obamacare are getting financial assistance to lower their premiums, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. That is a jump from 80 percent during the last open enrollment period. ... includes more than 3.4 million people who selected a plan in the 37 states that are using the HealthCare.gov platform for 2015 Full Title: Tax dollars at work: 87% of new Obamacare users given federal aid
  • Philly-Based Investment Adviser Has Become Obamacare's Digital Menace

    11/12/2014 7:28:30 AM PST · by CharlesOConnell · 9 replies
    HuffPo ^ | 11/11/14 | Sam Stein
    A "nobody" named Rich Weinstein keeps digging up damaging clips about Obamacare. I'm an investment adviser," Weinstein tells me from his home near Philadelphia. "I'm a nobody. Im the guy who lives in his moms basement wearing a tinfoil hat." (He's joking about the mom and the tinfoil.)
  • King, Halbig, Et Al. Head To The Supreme Court

    11/11/2014 9:05:01 PM PST · by Ray76 · 5 replies
    Forbes ^ | Nov 7, 2014 | Michael F. Cannon
    I applaud the Supreme Courts decision to grant certiorari in King v. Burwell. Since January, the Obama administration has been spending billions of unauthorized federal dollars, and subjecting nearly 60 million Americans to unauthorized taxes, all to hide the full cost of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or ObamaCare. The administrations actions have not only violated the law and caused massive economic disruption, they have also subverted the democratic process.
  • Four Reasons the Supreme Court Is Likely to Rule against the Obama Administration in Burwell

    11/09/2014 2:52:59 PM PST · by Extremely Extreme Extremist · 33 replies
    NRO.COM ^ | 08 NOVEMBER 2014 | JOHN YOO
    The Supreme Court followed up the landslide election on Tuesday with its own shocker: it announced that it will hear the Burwell case, which challenges the Obama administrations extension of insurance subsidies in states that do not have health-care exchanges. I think the chances are high that the administration will lose. Because:
  • Six potential effects of a Supreme Court ruling against HHS on Obamacare

    11/07/2014 10:25:39 PM PST · by right-wing agnostic · 7 replies
    Washington Examiner ^ | November 7, 2014 | Philip Klein
    On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review whether the insurance subsidies through President Obama's healthcare law are illegal in 36 states, because the text of Obamacare limited subsidies to those states that set up their own exchanges. Here are six potential outcomes if the Supreme Court rules against the Department of Health and Human Services and declares such subsidies illegal. 1. Uncertainty keeps repeal flame alive The Supreme Court is coming at a time when there's an internal debate among Republicans about how the new Senate majority should approach the prospect of repealing Obamacare. Ever since the major...
  • Gingrich: High Court Obamacare Decision 'Devastating to President'

    11/07/2014 4:47:15 PM PST · by xzins · 39 replies
    Newsmax ^ | 07 Nov 2014 | Sean Piccoli
    Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich tells Newsmax TV that a Supreme Court decision on Friday to hear another legal challenge to the Affordable Care Act is "devastating to the president." "I have no ability to judge what the Supreme Court will do," Gingrich said, noting that Chief Justice John Roberts once cast the deciding vote to uphold President Barack Obama's signature health care overhaul. But Gingrich said the new challenge is based on making the Affordable Care Act comply with the actual text of the statute that Congress passed and that Obama signed and Gingrich said that in this...
  • The Supreme Court will hear King. Thats bad news for the ACA (aka Obamacare)

    11/07/2014 11:43:33 AM PST · by 2ndDivisionVet · 37 replies
    The Incidental Economist ^ | November 7, 2014 | Nicholas Bagley
    In a significant setback for the Obama administration, the Supreme Court just agreed to review King v. Burwell, the Fourth Circuits decision upholding an IRS rule extending tax credits to federally established exchanges. The government had asked the Court to take a pass because theres no split in the circuit courts over whether the IRS rule is valid. At least four justicesit only takes four to grant certiorarivoted to take the case anyhow. As I see it, whats troubling here is not that the Court took King in the absence of a split. Its rules permit it to hear cases...
  • Obamacare Exchange Subsidies Headed to U.S. Supreme Court

    11/07/2014 1:50:24 PM PST · by ThethoughtsofGreg · 7 replies
    American Legislator ^ | 11-7-14 | Sean Riley
    The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments against the availability of exchange subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. Todays order from the Court granted review in King v. Burwell, one of several cases challenging IRS regulations extending tax-credit subsidies to the states with federal exchanges. Briefings will be submitted over the next few months, and a ruling is not expected until June.
  • Justices to hear challenge to health law subsidies

    11/07/2014 10:12:28 AM PST · by BAW · 44 replies
    AP ^ | Nov 7, 2014 | MARK SHERMAN
    The Supreme Court agreed Friday to hear a new challenge to President Barack Obama's health care law. The justices said they will decide whether the law authorizes subsidies that help millions of low- and middle-income people afford their health insurance premiums. A federal appeals court upheld Internal Revenue Service regulations that allow health-insurance tax credits under the Affordable Care Act for consumers in all 50 states. Opponents argue that most of the subsidies are illegal.
  • Obamacare Is Headed For Another Supreme Court Showdown, And It Puts The Law In 'Dangerous Territory'

    11/07/2014 10:59:44 AM PST · by PJ-Comix · 105 replies
    Business Insider ^ | November 7, 2014 | Brett LoGiurato
    The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to take up a new challenge to the Affordable Care Act, a move that will again thrust the law into a high-profile battle before the high court.The Supreme Court's move is somewhat surprising, considering there is still no split in the lower, circuit courts. But the high court agreed toKing v. Burwell, a case in which the Fourth Circuit court upheld an IRS rule that extends the distribution of health insurance subsidies to states served by the federal insurance marketplace.The challenge to the law is viewed as having the potential to cripple Obamacare in...
  • Yes, Virginia, There Is Still a Circuit Split between Halbig and King

    10/19/2014 7:51:04 PM PDT · by SteveH · 2 replies
    Forbes ^ | 10/14/2014 | Michael F. Cannon
    [...] Perhaps most important for court-watchers, the plaintiffs further noted that contrary to the governments claims, there is still technically a conflict between the two Circuits. Thats because under the D.C. Circuits rules, the decision to grant en banc review vacated the panels judgment, but not its opinion. So yes, Virginia, theres still a circuit split.
  • How ObamaCares Victories Count Against It In Sissel v. HHS

    10/19/2014 12:30:23 PM PDT · by Kaslin · 7 replies
    Townhall.com ^ | October 19, 2014 | Michael F. Cannon
    Randy Barnett has an excellent post at the Volokh Conspiracy about his recent amicus brief requesting the D.C. Circuit grant en banc review of Sissel v. HHS. (Sound familiar?) Sissel challenges the constitutionality of ObamaCare’s individual mandate – which the Supreme Court ruled could only be constitutional if imposed under Congress’ taxing power – on the grounds that this, ahem, tax originated in the Senate rather than the House, as the Constitution’s Origination Clause requires. A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit ruled against Sissel. The panel’s rationale was that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was not the...
  • Why Did States Spend Millions To Create Tech That Healthcare.gov Had Already Developed?

    10/12/2014 5:06:02 AM PDT · by SteveH · 15 replies
    gotnews.com ^ | October 2, 2014 | Scot K. Vorse
    [....] So why the changes and why did Washington and Nevada request and use tax payer funds to develop electronic tax credit technology if they intended to use the technology already developed by HHS? There are two possibilities: Either HHS had decided it needed a tax credit calculator or it hadnt. If it had why didnt it share this technology and collaborate with the states from Day One, which would have reduced the amount of tax funded grants? Also, a significant amount of the $4.8 billion awarded to states was allocated to develop tax credit calculator technology. Why had...
  • Debating Halbig and King

    10/12/2014 3:23:05 AM PDT · by SteveH · 1 replies
    The Volokh Conspiracy via The Washington Post ^ | October 7, 2014 | Michael F. Cannon
    [...] In King news, on Friday the federal government filed its brief in opposition to the plaintiffs petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court. Conspicuously absent from this brief is any mention of MIT economist Jonathan Gruber. The federal government routinely cited his work in its prior briefs in both Halbig and King, but not here. The Court is scheduled to consider the King cert petition in November. [...]
  • Economists Arguments against Obamacare Lawsuits Backfire

    10/06/2014 4:11:06 PM PDT · by Kaslin · 4 replies
    Townhall.com ^ | October 6, 2014 | Michael F. Cannon
    By Jonathan H. Adler and Michael F. CannonThree years ago, we blew the whistle on the government behavior now being challenged in multiple Obamacare lawsuits, including Halbig v. Burwell and King v. Burwell. We performed much of the legal analysis underpinning those challenges. So it amused us when economists Henry Aaron, David Cutler and Peter Orszag tried to defend the government and counsel against Supreme Court review of King, yet inadvertently undercut the government on both counts. Contrary to their characterization, plaintiffs Halbig and King do not challenge the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, much less attempt to repeal...
  • Pruitt v. Burwell: IRS's Illegal ObamaCare Taxes/Spending Suffer Another Defeat In Federal Court

    10/03/2014 5:14:59 AM PDT · by SteveH · 8 replies
    forbes ^ | 9/30/2014 | michael f. cannon
    The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma handed the Obama administration another and a much harsher defeat in one of four lawsuits challenging the IRSs attempt to implement ObamaCares major taxing and spending provisions where the law does not authorize them. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provides that its subsidies for private health insurance, its employer mandate, and to a large extent its individual mandate only take effect within a state if the state establishes a health insurance Exchange. Two-thirds (36) of the states declined to establish Exchanges, which should have freed more...
  • The Two Issues That Could Bring Down Obamacare

    10/01/2014 2:48:37 PM PDT · by afraidfortherepublic · 10 replies
    The Fiscal Times ^ | 10-1-14 | Brianna Ehley
    Today marks the one-year anniversary for Obamacares health exchangeswhich have helped more than 7 million people across the country enroll in health coverage. And while Obamacares marketplace is settling in for its second year, serious issues are cropping up that could potentially derail the entire health care law leaving millions without affordable health coverage. The first potential problem deals with funding for the laws crucial risk corridor program, which protects insurers from major losses. Insurers who agree to sell policies on the new exchanges are compensated for if they incur heavy losses during the first few years of Obamacares implementation....
  • Why This Conservative Lawyer Thinks He Can Still Cripple Obamacare

    09/26/2014 9:37:32 PM PDT · by 2ndDivisionVet · 6 replies
    Talking Points Memo ^ | September 26, 2014 | Sahil Kapur
    The top lawyer arguing a case to overturn Obamacare subsidies believes he can succeed at crippling the law even if it's upheld in every district and appellate court. A three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit invalidated the federal exchange subsidies in June. The full court subsequently vacated the ruling and announced it'll re-hear the case, called Halbig v. Burwell. The conservative opponents have a tough battle because the en banc ruling will feature 8 Democratic-appointed judges four of whom were appointed by President Obama himself and 5 Republican-appointed judges. Michael Carvin, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, has appealed...
  • Harry Reids Court-Packing Scheme Pays Off In Halbig Case

    09/19/2014 3:25:18 PM PDT · by SteveH · 3 replies
    The Federalist ^ | Sept. 5, 2014 | Ross Kaminsky
    But because the current administration recognized this court as critical in future legal challenges to Obamacare, they wanted to and hypocritically did shift the balance of the court in a decidedly Progressive way which is to say in a way which recognizes almost no limits on government power nor on the appropriate behavior of judges in expanding that power. On Thursday, those malign efforts paid off for Obama and Reid as the DC Circuit agreed to an en banc review (all of the judges rehearing the case after it is initially decided by a three-judge panel) of...
  • Federal Court Throws Out Obamacare Subsidies Ruling

    09/04/2014 9:41:07 AM PDT · by GIdget2004 · 47 replies
    NBCNews.com ^ | 09/04/2014 | Pete Williams
    In a victory for the Obama administration, a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. Thursday threw out an earlier ruling that said financial subsidies are not available for people who bought health insurance on the federal exchange. A three-judge panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals reached that conclusion in late July. On the same day, a federal appeals court in Richmond reached the opposite conclusion and said the subsidies are available. But Thursday, the full D.C. Court of Appeals said it will re-hear the case, which erases the lower court ruling that went against the subsidies. This greatly diminishes...
  • The Manufactured Crisis of Halbig

    09/01/2014 8:49:12 AM PDT · by SteveH · 3 replies
    The Huffington Post ^ | August 27, 2014 | Elizabeth Taylor
    The two judges in the majority in Halbig focused on the literal terms of isolated language in the ACA and, in so doing, ignored the other provisions that conflict with that literal reading. Those judges are like the mechanic working on an engine who has a few pieces left over and just throws them away, not worrying that the engine no longer works the way it should. We should give the rest of the mechanic's team a chance to put the engine back together properly.
  • Michael Greve on Halbig and Its Aftermath

    08/06/2014 6:33:57 PM PDT · by SteveH · 7 replies
    Volokh Conspiracy via The Washington Post ^ | August 6, 2014 | Jonathan H. Alder
    Greve writes: The King and Halbig plaintiffs argument is that the statutory language must mean what it plainly says: Obamacares machinery of subsidies and mandates requires exchanges to be established by a state. The government and its defenders say that this cant be right: since only some 14 states have established an exchange, plaintiffs position would render Obamacare inoperable for most of the countryand Congress cannot have intended that. By a state, they insist, must mean something like by a state, or the federal government stepping into its shoes. Needless to say, the plaintiffs and defendants have spun out and...
  • People dont get the new Obamacare lawsuits, but they think all exchanges should provide subsidies

    08/06/2014 2:28:13 PM PDT · by SteveH · 22 replies
    The Washington Post ^ | August 5, 2014 | Jason Millman
    In short: People haven't paid that close attention to these challenges to Obamacare, and they don't totally understand them. But they mostly agree that anyone eligible for a subsidy should be able to receive it, regardless of who's running an exchange. The new Morning Consult poll of about 1,800 registered voters found that 58 percent of those surveyed said all exchanges whether they're state- or federal-run should provide subsidies, while 15 percent disagreed and 27 percent didn't offer an opinion. As the below chart shows, those identifying as liberal were more likely to support subsidies in any exchange...
  • King Might Be Headed to the Supreme Court; Perhaps Halbig To Follow

    08/06/2014 1:48:04 PM PDT · by SteveH · 2 replies
    The National Review ^ | August 5, 2014 | Carrie Severino
    But now those judges will have to decide whether they want their first high-profile act on the court to be one that is baldly political: overturning a meticulously-reasoned decision that overturned the IRSs attempt to rewrite the Affordable Care Act. It would make the new judges look like presidential pawns who are attempting to save his bacon, lowering them to the level of the disgraced and politicized IRS itself. Even if the D.C. Circuit judges are willing to take the fall for the President in this case, there probably wont be time to undo the circuit split before the Supreme...
  • Is Halbig v. Burwell En-Banc Worthy?

    08/06/2014 1:29:15 PM PDT · by SteveH · 4 replies
    The Volokh Conspiracy via The Washington Post ^ | August 5, 2014 | Jonathan H. Adler
    It is well understood that just because a courts opinion is wrong does not make it en banc worthy. Judge Jeffery Sutton U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit made this point some years ago. Its also a point that Judge Edwards made in his opinion respecting the denial of en banc review in Bartlett v. Bowen (1987). Judge Edwardss opinion in Bartlett is worth quoting at length: The decision to grant en banc consideration is unquestionably among the most serious non-merits determinations an appellate court can make, because it may have the effect of vacating a panel opinion...
  • Obamacare: HuffPo Writer Whines GOP Won't 'Fix' Law to Allow Federal Exchange Subsidies

    08/05/2014 4:23:09 PM PDT · by PJ-Comix · 22 replies
    NewsBusters ^ | August 5, 2014 | P.J. Gladnick
    Jeffrey Young is a health care writer for the Huffington Post but you really have to wonder if he is posting his stories from Bizarro World. He is actually upset that Republicans in Congress, in the wake of the Halbig vs Burwell D.C. Circuit Court decision, won't join together with the Democrats in a giant kumbaya to "fix" the highly unpopular Obamacare law so that the language will clearly state that states using the federal exchange will be eligible for subsidies. What is interesting is how liberals until about a week ago derided the idea that the language of the...
  • A closer look at the courts' impact on health care

    08/05/2014 5:44:42 AM PDT · by SteveH · 2 replies
    WSJ ^ | August 4, 2014 | Drew Altman
    ... Now lets consider Halbig v. Burwell, a case in which recent appeals court rulings made headlines. Halbig, which raises questions about whether the U.S. government can provide tax credits to people in federal- as well as state-run insurance exchanges, is still churning through the courts. What if the plaintiffs prevail in Halbig, denying tax credits to moderate-income people in states with federal health insurance exchanges? The map below shows the potential combined effect of the 2012 Supreme Court decision and a plaintiffs victory in Halbig. (To be clear, the courts are not considering the earlier Medicaid ruling as part...
  • The Halbig Cases: a Compendium

    08/05/2014 5:23:10 AM PDT · by SteveH · 1 replies
    Forbes ^ | August 4, 2014 | Michael J. Cannon
    ... On July 22, 2014, in Halbig v. Burwell, a three- judge panel of the D.C. Circuit sided with the plaintiffs and ruled the IRS is indeed imposing taxes and dispensing subsidies that no Congress ever authorized and that federal law expressly precludes. On the same day, just hours later, a three-judge panel of the Fourth Circuit sided with the government in King v. Burwell. The Obama administration has requested en banc review of the Halbig ruling by the full D.C. Circuit. The King plaintiffs have appealed the Fourth Circuits ruling to the Supreme Court. In an earlier post, I...
  • No Need for a Halbig Rehearing

    08/04/2014 8:35:19 PM PDT · by SteveH · 5 replies
    Thee Wall Street Journal ^ | August 3, 2014 | Adam J. White
    ... But if the D.C. Circuit rehears the case en banc, it would be a sharp break from history. The D.C. Circuit rehears virtually none of its cases. Each year the court's three-judge panels make roughly 500 rulings, but the court averages roughly one en banc rehearing. This year has produced a bumper crop: two. The previous year: zero. ....
  • Did Ben Nelson Doom Obamacare?

    08/04/2014 4:39:36 AM PDT · by rootin tootin · 18 replies
    American Spectator ^ | 8/4/2014 | David Catron
    During the oral arguments that preceded the recent appeals court ruling against the Obama administration in Halbig v. Burwell, an under-reported yet crucial discussion took place between two of the judges and counsel for the plaintiffs. Judge Harry T. Edwards pronounced himself confused as to why Congress would have concerned itself with what entity ultimately set up Obamacares insurance exchanges. Judge A. Raymond Randolph and attorney Michael A. Carvin did their best to enlighten the befuddled jurist: JUDGE EDWARDS: Im trying to understand who cares who sets up the exchange? JUDGE RANDOLPH: Ben Nelson MR. CARVIN: The enactors...
  • An Obamacare Statist Gets Caught Lying (over and over again)

    08/02/2014 9:16:17 AM PDT · by Kaslin · 18 replies
    Townhall.com ^ | August 2, 2014 | Daniel J. Mitchell
    Many of you probably heard about the Halbig decision, in which a federal court struck a blow against Obamacare by ruling that the IRS was wrong to arbitrarily grant subsidies for health insurance policies purchased through a federal exchange. And why did the judges rule against the IRS? Well, for the simple reason that the Obamacare legislation specifically says that subsidies are only available for policies purchased through exchanges set up by state governments. My Cato colleague Michael Cannon explains: The PPACA authorizes the IRS to issue health-insurance tax credits only to taxpayers who purchase coverage through an Exchange established...
  • Jonathan Grubers Speak-O Rebutting Himself Heads for the Supreme Court

    08/01/2014 5:33:02 PM PDT · by PJ-Comix · 3 replies
    The Independent Sentinel ^ | August 1, 2014 | Sara Noble
    Jonathan Gruber, one of the architects of Obamacare has filed an amicus brief on behalf of the government in two federal cases, swearing that the government always meant to have the federal government pay out subsidies. Fourcases are contesting that issue and at least one is using Jonathan Grubers own words to rebut government expert Jonathan Gruber. It will eventually makes its way to the Supreme Court of the United States.It gets even worse than that, the partisan hack helped the supposedly nonpartisan CBO concoct their numbers which helped sell Obamacare to the public as cost effective. That discovery comes...
  • Obamacare opponents ask Supreme Court to step in

    08/01/2014 2:19:47 PM PDT · by Oldeconomybuyer · 21 replies
    MSNBC ^ | August 1, 2014 | By Adam Serwer
    The group seeking to invalidate the Affordable Care Acts subsidies to Americans purchasing health insurance through federally run state marketplaces is asking the Supreme Court to take up the case early. The Competitive Enterprise Institute, the conservative group funding challenges to the IRS rule allowing subsidies to flow to state exchanges, announced Thursday that it was asking the Supreme Court to intervene. The challengers argue that the Affordable Care Act only allows subsidies in exchanges set up by states an interpretation that could lead to millions of people being unable to afford coverage. Owing largely to Republican resistance, only...
  • Obamacare Architects Mistake About Subsidies Used by HHS as Defense in Court

    08/01/2014 2:15:19 PM PDT · by Nachum · 13 replies
    Breitbart ^ | 8/1/14 | Scot Vorse
    Last Saturday, Breitbart News uncovered three reports and analysis written by Jonathan Gruber, an MIT economist and chief architect of Obamacare, stating that subsidies or tax credits will be provided to individuals to purchase health insurance from private companies through state-organized exchanges. These reports were discovered after a video clip surfaced of Gruber making similar comments on the clip. Gruber said his remarks were a "mistake" made while "speaking off-the-cuff." One of the three reports, titled The Facts Straight on Health Care Reform, was written by Gruber for The New England Journal of Medicine in December 2009. Breitbart has since
  • #grubergate; Tale of the Tapes (video)

    08/01/2014 2:01:10 PM PDT · by SteveH · 3 replies
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhavicDc0Ts ^ | July 31, 2014 | AmericanCommitment
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhavicDc0Ts
  • Speaknado: New Republic 'Obamacare Truther' Confession

    08/01/2014 12:42:36 PM PDT · by PJ-Comix · 3 replies
    NewsBusters ^ | August 1, 2014 | P.J. Gladnick
    AHAHAHAHAHA!!!! AHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Pardon me for channeling my inner Max Cady laugh but I just couldn't help myself. The irony, the embarrassment, and the schadenfreude is just too much to bear without bursting out laughing. It turns out that one of the biggest Obamacare supporters on the Web, Jonathan Cohn of the New Republic, has himself committed a "Speak-O." What makes it even funnier was that Cohn was the person Jonathan "Speak-O" Gruber turned to in order lamely attempt to explain away his premature bout with truthfulness about the fact that the Obamacare law intended for subsidies to go to state-based,...
  • Halbig Shows Leftist Wonks Are Not Very Good at Their Jobs

    08/01/2014 1:03:41 PM PDT · by SteveH · 11 replies
    The Federalist ^ | July 31, 2014 | Sean Davis
    ... To be clear: one of the leading experts on health care policy for the Left could not possibly imagine that 36 states would do exactly as 36 states have done. One of the best health care writers out there found it hard to believe that 36 states would act exactly as they have acted. At one point during his January 2010 interview with NPRs Terry Gross, Cohn even went so far as to declare that the ability of a state to opt out would never make it into law. As a result, Cohn admitted that he didnt even really...
  • Halbig plaintiffs file petition for Writ to SCOTUS

    07/31/2014 4:14:12 PM PDT · by Perdogg · 16 replies
    Brief at link. Halbig plaintiffs file petition for Writ to SCOTUS
  • WaPo Blogger Undercuts His Own Case against Halbig

    07/31/2014 10:32:09 AM PDT · by SteveH · 3 replies
    The National Review ^ | Joly 30, 2014 | Charles C..W. Cooke
    ... In an attempt to establish intent, Sargent quotes Yvette Fontenot, a lead Finance staffer who was directly involved in the merger of the bills: During the merger of the two bills, we layered the HELP Committee language that established a federal fallback on top of the Finance Committee language that included exchange established by the state. The result was the tax credits were to apply to all exchanges, both state and federal. Frankly, this smacks of post-rationalization and oversimplification. It is easy to forget this in the heat of political passion, but when the HELP and Finance bills were...
  • Case Against The D.C. Court's Halbig Ruling Crumbles

    07/31/2014 4:15:25 AM PDT · by IBD editorial writer · 7 replies
    Investor's Business Daily ^ | 07/30/2014 | IBD Staff
    The more ObamaCare backers try to attack the D.C. Circuit Court's decision that limits subsidies to state-run exchanges, the more it looks like the two judges on that panel got it right.
  • Oklahoma AG Cites Jonathan Gruber To Rebut Government Expert Jonathan Gruber (Pruitt v. Burwell)

    07/30/2014 7:28:13 PM PDT · by SteveH · 8 replies
    Forbes ^ | Michael F. Cannon
    ... Yesterday, the State of Oklahoma filed a motion to apprise a federal judge of Grubers remarks. Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt was the first to challenge the Obama administrations illegal taxes and subsidies way back in September 2012 (Pruitt v. Burwell). Solicitor general Patrick Wyrick noted Grubers remarks are highly relevant, because the government itself has repeatedly relied on Gruber as an expert in these cases: Defendants themselves relied on evidence from Professor Gruber in an attempt to show the supposed implausibility of Congress having made something as important as the subsidies hinge on the States willingness to establish...
  • The Obamacare Chimera

    07/30/2014 2:38:57 PM PDT · by SteveH · 2 replies
    The Wall Street Journal ^ | July 30, 2014 | James Taranto
    ... In other words, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a chimera--a monster made up of parts of multiple ordinary creatures. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (metaphorical rendering) Getty Images Let's call it half man, half snake, to match the illustration we found. The administration's claim is that it has the power to alter Congress's creation by ignoring the snake half and deeming the chimera to be all man. (Note here the rapidity with which Halbig's critics have abandoned any claim that the plaintiffs are wrong about what the law actually says.) That is a stunning...
  • Obamacare Means What Obamacare Says: Can we discern congressional intent by what was never said?

    07/30/2014 9:29:01 AM PDT · by SeekAndFind · 21 replies
    REASON ^ | 07/30/2014 | Peter Suderman
    Is it possible to discern congressional intent by what was never said? In the wake of last week's D.C. Circuit court ruling in Halbig v. Burwell, that, contrary to the administration's current implementation, Obamacare does not allow insurance subsidies in federally run health exchanges, supporters of the law and reporters who covered it have argued as much: No one in Congress ever said that subsidies were limited to state-run exchanges, and reporters never heard about a debate. The idea was unheard of before critics of the health law decided to challenge the administration in court. It's true that the legislative...
  • Obamacare's Prognosis Worsens

    07/30/2014 4:13:54 AM PDT · by rootin tootin · 7 replies
    American Spectator ^ | David Catron
    A while back, I suggested in this space that Obamacare might go the way of McCain-Feingold. That campaign finance reform law was not, you will recall, killed by a single lawsuit or act of Congress. Indeed, the general consensus at the end of 2003 was that McCain-Feingold was in perfect health. Less than seven years later it was, for all intents and purposes, dead. It had succumbed to a long series of attacks by determined opponents who were convinced that it was unconstitutional. Much the same thing is obviously happening to PPACA. Congress has already been compelled to repeal a...
  • Halbig Is an Opportunity for Supreme Court To Rededicate Itself to Rule of Law

    07/29/2014 8:59:40 AM PDT · by Kaslin · 1 replies
    Townhall.com ^ | July 29, 2014 | David Limbaugh
    True, the Halbig case, if it makes its way to the Supreme Court, will present an opportunity for Chief Justice John Roberts to redeem himself from his abominably activist salvation of Obamacare. But more important, it will be an opportunity for the high court to reaffirm this nation's commitment to the rule of law. In Halbig v. Burwell, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that under the Affordable Care Act federal health insurance subsidies are available for policies purchased only on state exchanges and not those purchased on the federal exchange. If the Supreme Court takes the case, it...
  • WaPo's Greg Sargent Devastates Halbig Case

    07/29/2014 4:13:17 PM PDT · by Perdogg · 9 replies
    WaPo's Greg Sargent Devastates Halbig Case Against Obamacare Federal Subsidies With Bombshell Reporting Wait, did I say "devastates?" I meant "vindicates." I get confused about stuff like that sometimes. Then again, in my defense, so does Greg Sargent. Let me explain. This is a lengthy post, so fair warning. Quick refresher: Halbig case turns upon the question of whether the ACA, as written, permits the government to offer federal subsidies (read: price relief) to people who purchase health insurance on federally-established exchanges, or only on state-established ones. The IRS issued an official administrative ruling last year that subsidies applied to...
  • Schlafly: Stunning Setback to Obamacare

    07/29/2014 9:22:13 AM PDT · by jazusamo · 10 replies
    Creators Syndicate ^ | July 29, 2014 | Phyllis Schlafly
    Obamacare has proven again to be the biggest legislative failure in history, with last week's ruling that its subsidies are illegal. These subsidies induced some 5 million Americans to sign up for Obamacare but are prohibited by law as held by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Halbig v. Burwell. This humiliation to the Obama administration was a devastating setback to legislation already disfavored by a 59-40 percent margin among the public, according to the latest CNN poll. Twice as many Americans say they are being hurt rather than helped by Obamacare. Officially known as the...
  • Jonathan Gruber, the Flip-Flopping Architect of Obamacare

    07/29/2014 7:34:49 AM PDT · by SteveH · 5 replies
    Politico ^ | July 28, 2014 | Michsel F. Cannon
    And it is precisely because of Grubers intellect and profound familiarity with the PPACA that his attempts to explain away his past statements are not credible. Grubers first attempt was, in essence, Dude, I flaked. He said his comments were the verbal equivalent of a typo a speak-o, as he called it. Then another recording from 2012 emerged in which Gruber said exactly the same thing to a different audience. This was not a speak-o. It was part of a presentation Gruber had given multiple times.