Judge Vinson to Obama - Get To Gettin' on ObamaCare Appeal

Politico: U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson put the health care reform law on a fast track to the Supreme Court on Thursday — giving the Obama administration just seven days to file an appeal and signaling to fellow jurists that the time for a decision is now.

Vinson called his order a stay, but the real message was clear: Hurry up.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson put the health care reform law on a fast track to the Supreme Court on Thursday — giving the Obama administration just seven days to file an appeal and signaling to fellow jurists that the time for a decision is now.

Vinson called his order a stay, but the real message was clear: Hurry up. [MORE]

What Judge Vinson did today was to take away the Obama administration's delay tactics, by treating the administration's motion to "clarify" and a motion to stay. However, the stay to his earlier ruling is only in effect provided the administration appeals to the 11th Circuit Court or the Supreme Court in seven days.

It is in the administration's best interest to delay going to the Supreme as long as possible. This is because the further down the road the implementation of ObamaCare goes, the greater the possibility the Supremes might be reluctant to strike it down. It is a long shot, but still another factor in the administration's favor.

Vinson's ruling today pretty much closes off that option.

I really like this guy Vinson, not only did he completely shot down mandate and ObamaCare in total, he put an end to the administrations courtroom shenanigans.

You can read Vinson's new ruling here.

Via: Memeorandum
Via: Politico

Obama's backtrack on mandates

The Hill: President Obama backed a significant change to the healthcare reform law for the first time Monday, supporting a plan that could delay implementation of the unpopular mandate to buy insurance.

Speaking to the nation’s governors, Obama said states should be able to request waivers for implementing alternatives to the reform law starting in 2014, three years earlier than the law allows. [...]

The waiver provision comes with a catch, however. A state’s waiver proposal must show that it is capable of providing coverage that is at least as comprehensive and affordable as that offered through new state-run health insurance exchanges, which also open in 2014. The state must also provide coverage to as many residents as the exchanges would have, and the proposal must not increase the federal deficit.

That is a pretty big catch.  Given the requirements, states are only left with the option of creating mini-ObamaCares or variations of RomneyCare.  I really get a kick out of the part about not increasing the federal deficit.  Even ObamaCare doesn't do that.  These individual state schemes will be very, very expensive at a time when states are looking at some serious budget shortfalls.

I have to say I don't like all this waiver action. First for politically well connected companies, then for unions and now for states.  Basically, ObamaCare has made all these institutions beholden to the Fed and the Fed can then arbitrarily grant or deny waives.  That is way too much power and easily opens the door for political shenanigans.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: The Hill 

3 - 2: Another Federal Judge rules in favor of ObamaCare mandates

Another liberal judge (appointed by Clinton) has ruled in favor of ObamaCare mandates.  U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler, of the District of Columbia, rules that opting out of health insurance cost others money, therefore government is within its right to use the Commerce Clause.

Ben Smith Politico: The perfect partisan streak in health care rulings continues, with D.C. federal district judge Gladys Kessler, a Clinton appointee, ruling the Affordable Care Act constitutional. She's the third Democratic judge to do so; two Republicans have found it unconstitutional.Kessler writes in one key passage on the mandate:
First, this Court agrees with the two other district courts which have ruled that the individuals subject to § 1501’s mandate provision are either present or future participants in the national health care market. See Liberty Univ., 2010 WL 4860299, at *15 (“Nearly everyone will require health care services at some point in their lifetimes, and it is not always possible to predict when one will be afflicted by illness or injury and require care.”); Thomas More Law Ctr., 720 F.Supp.2d at 894 (“The health care market is unlike other markets. No one can guarantee his or her health, or ensure that he or she will never participate in the health care market. . . . The plaintiffs have not opted out of the health care services market because, as living, breathing beings . . . they cannot opt out of this market.”). Thus, the vast majority of individuals, if not all individuals, will require some medical care in their lifetime.

But people can still opt out by paying the fee, so is anything really solved?  I also fail to see where the Constitutional authority comes from for the government to save.  If such a thing exists, why the heck hasn't been enforced across the board?  Our $14 trillion deficit would seem to speak to the contrary.

The Supreme Court really needs to fast track this.

Via: Memeorandum
Via: The Note
Via: Ben Smith Politico

IRS: Buy health insurance or lose your tax refund

The Daily Caller: Individuals who don’t purchase health insurance may lose their tax refunds according to IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman. After acknowledging the recently passed health-care bill limits the agency’s options for enforcing the individual mandate, Shulman told reporters that the most likely way to penalize individuals that don’t comply is by reducing or confiscating their tax refunds.

Speaking at the National Press Club on Monday, Shulman downplayed the IRS’s role in enforcing the recent overhaul of the health insurance industry by claiming the agency would not aggressively target individuals who don’t purchase coverage. He noted that the health-care bill expressly forbids the agency from freezing bank accounts, seizing assets or pursuing criminal charges, but when pressed said the IRS would most likely use tax refund offsets to penalize those that don’t comply with the mandate. The IRS uses refund offsets to collect from individuals that owe the federal government a delinquent debt.

“These are not the kinds of things we send agents out about,” Shulman said. “These are things where you get a letter from us. Congress was very careful to make sure there was nothing too punitive in this bill.” [...]

We all knew something like this would have to be the case. What better way to collect the penalty than to hold on to refunds?  When I read this article, I was immediately reminded of a debate Bill O’Reilly had with Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY).  Wiener tried his best not to say that the IRS would be the enforcer of the individual mandate. I wonder if Weiner would like to have another go at that answer?

  

Right now the IRS is saying that they are not aggressively going after people who fail to buy insurance. However, as the cost of ObamaCare explodes (the bogus assumptions given to the CBO makes this a certainty) who is to say the IRS won’t be given a freer hand get the much needed dollars to keep this insane program going.

Let’s just hope these state lawsuits are successful, because a nasty can of worms will be open once the IRS gets involved.

Via: Memeorandum

Via: The Daily Caller