Obamacare blows up

2017 may be the year that Obamacare blows up.  The number of mandated free coverages and other government requirements on the insurance companies is causing premiums to shoot up.  It has also caused many of the insurance companies that once participated to drop out of the program, meaning less competition and sending premiums even higher.

An editorial in the Daily Oklahoman cites a buyer who paid $318 per month in Obamacare’s first year.  In 2017, he will have to pay $716 a month.  With a $2,500 deductible.  And his dental and vision plans have been dropped.

Yes, low income customers can get government subsidies, which will also have to go up, adding to the deficit. But even then, the deductibles have become so high that many of the uninsured are still hard-pressed to pay their medical bills even with their government-mandated insurance. [Read more…]

California churches to be forced to pay for abortions?

The state of California has classified abortion as a “basic health service,” which means that under Obamacare, all insurance policies, including those of churches, must pay for abortions.  Churches have applied to the Obama administration for relief, but they were denied.  The issue is now before the courts. [Read more…]

Obamacare funding ruled unconstitutional

A federal judge has ruled that the mechanism for subsidizing insurance companies under Obamacare violates the Constitution.  That document reads, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” (Article 1.  Section 9).  The Obama administration has been paying that money without Congress having passed an appropriation to do so.  The ruling is on hold, pending appeal. [Read more…]

Planned Parenthood fights back against defunding

We taxpayers give Planned Parenthood a half-billion dollars a year, something a measure that goes before the Senate as early as this evening would end.  So the abortion-industrial complex has issued talking points for its followers (see this and this in a single issue of the Washington Post) arguing that to defund Planned Parenthood would be a pro-abortion bill.  The reasoning being that if the organization can’t give give out contraceptives, then there will be more abortions.

But even if you accept the premise that contraceptives are a good thing, Obamacare makes them free from any drug store!  And even those who don’t have health insurance, even the government-subsidized plans, can get them free from community health clinics.  There are 9,059 of those, compared to 669 Planned Parenthood offices.  Even taking abortion off the table, why should taxpayers give all that money to Planned Parenthood AND the community clinics AND the insurance companies in Obamacare? [Read more…]

Supreme Court upholds Obamacare

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Obamacare, saying that the language of a  passage in the Affordable Care Act that limited subsidies to states that established insurance exchanges should not be allowed to undermine the larger purpose of the bill.

“In this instance,” wrote Chief Justice Roberts, “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.”  Dissenting Justice Scalia said,   “We should start calling this law SCOTUScare,” citing the two decisions supporting the health care law, which “will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.”

Responded President Obama to his victory, “The Affordable Care Act is here to stay.” [Read more…]

Supremes hear case on Obamacare language

The Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday on the most serious legal challenge to Obamacare so far.  At issue in King v. Burwell is whether the language in the Affordable Care Act that provides for federal subsidies for health insurance policies purchased in exchanges “established by the state” applies also to the policies purchased in the 34 states that refused to establish exchanges.

The clumsily written and largely unvetted law and the way it is being applied poses other questions for the court:  Does a law mean what it says, or what it surely must mean?  Do the words in a law mean what was originally intended (there is evidence that the writers of the law actually intended the provision to apply to state exchanges only in order to coerce states to establish them) or what the bureaucracy wants it to mean? [Read more…]