Federal Appeals Court Rules Obamacare's Individual Mandate Unconstitutional

A provision in President Obama's healthcare bill mandating that all citicizens purchase health insurance was ruled unconstitutional by a US Appeals Court in Atlanta on Friday afternoon. The decison was a review of an earlier and much more sweeping ruling by a US District Judge in Florida.



The divided panel of three judges sided with 26 states that were filing suit against the Administration to block the implementation of Obamacare. Friday's decision will likely pave the way for the supreme court to hear arguments for and against HR 3590 [possibly in time for the 2012 Presidential campagin- NANESB!].

The panel said that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority by requiring Americans to buy insurance or face penalties.



"This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority," the panel said in the majority opinion.



The majority also said that a basic objective of the law is to "make health insurance coverage accessible and thereby to reduce the number of uninsured persons." Without the individual mandate, the majority said, the law "retains many other provisions that help to accomplish some of the same objectives as the individual mandate."



The states urged the 11th Circuit to uphold U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson's ruling, saying in a court filing that letting the law stand would set a troubling precedent that "would imperil individual liberty, render Congress's other enumerated powers superfluous, and allow Congress to usurp the general police power reserved to the states."



The Justice Department countered that Congress had the power to require most people to buy health insurance or face tax penalties because Congress has the authority to regulate interstate business. It said the legislative branch was exercising its "quintessential" rights when it adopted the new law.



During oral arguments in June, the three-judge panel repeatedly raised questions about the overhaul and expressed unease with the insurance requirement. Each of the three worried aloud if upholding the landmark law could open the door to Congress adopting other sweeping economic mandates.



The arguments unfolded in what's considered one of the nation's most conservative appeals courts. But the randomly selected panel represents different judicial perspectives. None of the three is considered either a stalwart conservative or an unfaltering liberal.

Friday's ruling could very well set the stage for a Supreme Court battle over Obamacare during the 2012 election cycle.

Waiver Mania! HHS Awards Over 200 Obamacare Waivers Including High-End Businesses in Congresswoman Pelosi's District, Entire State of Nevada

Pelosi getting pointers on governing from Bashr Al Assad, circa 2007

Still taking what's been described by some as a 'victory lap in a clown car' over the successful raid on Bin Laden's Pakistani compound, the Administration quietly announced on Friday that the Department of Health & Human Services had granted more than 200 additional waivers for HR 3590, also known as Obamacare.

The Obama administration approved 204 new waivers to Democrats’ healthcare reform law over the past month, bringing the total to 1,372.

The waivers are temporary and only apply to one provision of the law, which requires health plans to offer at least $750,000 worth of annual medical benefits before leaving patients to fend for themselves. Still, Republicans have assailed the waivers as a sign of both favoritism and of major problems with the law.

“The fact that over 1,000 waivers have been granted is a tacit admission that the healthcare law is fundamentally flawed,” Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) said in March. Upton is one of three House committee chairmen who has used new oversight powers to investigate the annual limit waivers.

Of the 204 new waivers issued by HHS, at least 38 went to upscale San Francisco resturants, hotels and nightclubs in Congresswoman Pelosi's disctrict. According to the Daily Caller, this is in addition to 27 new waivers for healthcare or drug companies and 31 waivers for unions in San Francisco.

Also given a partial waiver from 0bamacare- the entire state of Nevada after it appeared as though implementation would force insurance companies doing business in the Silver State to pull up stakes and leave.

Interestingly, while Harry Reid was an ardent backer of 0bamacare in the US Senate, his son Rory Reid was running for governor of Nevada last year. Rory had claimed that the healthcare legislation could end up hurting Nevada during a gubernatorial debate in October 2010.

Waivers, Requests for Exemptions Mark 1-Year Anniversary of 0bamacare Being Signed Into Law.

Today marks the one year anniversary of President Obama signing HR 3590- better known as 0bamacare- into law after months of contentious public debate and last minute wrangling. [I don't know about you, but I for one was tired of stepping around all the corpses of people without adequate healthcare who collapsed and died in the middle of the sidewalk- NANESB!]

The bill passed the US Senate on Christmas Eve and squeaked through the House of Representatives by a 217-212 margin in March 2010 after a bloc of reportedly pro-life Democrats caved in exchange for a worthless piece of paper in the form of an executive order.

By and large, the Democrats who voted for 0bamacare found themselves out of a job when voters went to the polls in November 2010. Meanwhile, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has been issuing a steadily increasing number of waivers- many of them going to unions, school districts or municipalities. The Lonely Conservative is reporting that the number now exceeds 1000 waivers (including the State of Maine) with more to come.

In addition to the waivers, a number of Federal judges have declared parts of the law or the entire thing unconstitutional. More than half the states in the union are actively seeking to block implementation of 0bamacare.

Perhaps the most glaring example of unmitigated chutzpah comes from Conressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY 9)- who reportedly has is interested in running for mayor of New York City. Weiner was one of 0bamacare's most strident and obnoxious cheerleaders in the debate leading up to it's passage in Congress. However, one year later Congressman Weiner is having second thoughts saying that his office was looking into whether or not a waiver for New York City would be feasible.

Hmm....a waiver? Interesting. Why not some slight modifications to this otherwise flawless gem you were pom-pom shaking for, Congressman Weiner [heh heh.....I said....ah, nevermind- NANESB!]. Unless you were for the bill (as a Congressman) before you were against the bill (as a Mayoral candidate).

Perhaps by this time next year, Congress can completely cut off funding for this thing, or like cap & trade, this monstrosity will languish thanks to legal challenges and key provisions being blocked or de-funded. I suspect this very issue will be an albatross around the neck of the Democrats who voted for this and are running for re-election in 2012.

Federal Judge in Florida Rules 0bamacare Unconstitutional; 500 MORE waivers granted by HHS

A U.S. Judge in Pensacola, FL struck down the Healthcare Act as being unconstitutional on Monday, presenting the biggest challenge yet to the partisan bill that was signed into law last year. The ruling on Monday was more sweeping in scope than a December ruling in Virginia that declared the individual mandate to exceed Congressional authority, as Judge Roger Vinson was hearing the case where 26 states filed suit against HR 3590.

"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications," Vinson wrote.

Referring to a key provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, he sided with governors and attorneys general from 26 U.S. states, almost all of whom are Republicans, in declaring it unconstitutional.

"Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the Act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution," the judge ruled.

The ruling came after the House of Representatives passed a bill to repeal HR 3590 and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued 500 new healthcare waivers.- this brings the total number of 0bamacare waivers to over 700.

A good number of the entities that have successfully obtained waivers from HHS include many of the same labor unions who supported the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This naturally begs the question of why they would seek an exemption from legislation they had been so supportive of.

House Votes to Repeal 0bamacare, 6 More States Challenge HR 3590

Even though it's likely to languish in the Senate, the newly elected Republicans of the 112th Congress made good on a promise that many of them campaigned on.

WASHINGTON—The Republican-led House voted Wednesday to repeal the health-care overhaul that is a signature achievement of President Barack Obama, in a largely symbolic move that made good on a GOP election promise but left uncertain what the party would offer as an alternative.

The vote was 245-189 in favor of repeal, with three Democrats joining the entire Republican caucus in the majority. That compared with 34 House Democrats who voted in March 2010 against enacting the law.

Despite Wednesday's vote, the law is all but certain to remain in place for now. The Democratic-controlled Senate doesn't plan to take up the repeal measure, and even if it were to clear that chamber, Mr. Obama would veto it.

Even if it doesn't pass the Senate, I would prefer that it went up for a vote to see who voted for and against it leading up to the 2012 elections. Although much of the public and a number of economists support a full repeal, that won't be likely as long as Obama is in the White House. However, the current congress can delay or halt implementation of key provisions of Obamacare by defunding agencies that are tasked with implementing and enforcing portions of the law.

There are also a number of legal obstructions facing the healthcare law, with at least 6 additional states joining in a lawsuit against Obamacare this week. Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Wyoming, Wisconsin and Ohio joined the lawsuit on Tuesday, bringing the total number of states challenging HR 3590 to 26.

Last month, a federal judge in Virgina struck down a key component- the government mandate to purchase insurance- as unconstitutional.

Death Panels Revisited? Obama Administration Revives Controversial 'End Of Life' Provision via Regulation

Not surprisingly, this was announced on Christmas Eve when the overwhelming majority of Americans were otherwise preoccupied.

WASHINGTON — When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.

Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.

Congressional supporters of the new policy, though pleased, have kept quiet. They fear provoking another furor like the one in 2009 when Republicans seized on the idea of end-of-life counseling to argue that the Democrats’ bill would allow the government to cut off care for the critically ill. [snip]

Mr. Blumenauer, the author of the original end-of-life proposal, praised the rule as “a step in the right direction.”

“It will give people more control over the care they receive,” Mr. Blumenauer said in an interview. “It means that doctors and patients can have these conversations in the normal course of business, as part of our health care routine, not as something put off until we are forced to do it.”

After learning of the administration’s decision, [Congressman] Blumenauer’s office celebrated “a quiet victory,” but urged supporters not to crow about it.

“While we are very happy with the result, we won’t be shouting it from the rooftops because we aren’t out of the woods yet,” Mr. Blumenauer’s office said in an e-mail in early November to people working with him on the issue. “This regulation could be modified or reversed, especially if Republican leaders try to use this small provision to perpetuate the ‘death panel’ myth.”

I can't help but wonder if these death panels are so 'mythical', according to Congressman Blumenauer [D-OR, 3rd District], then why was it kept out of the original legislation, only to be snuck in later on via regulation when they figured nobody else was looking? Moreover, why are Blumenauer and others urging supporters to keep quiet about it instead of 'shouting from the rooftops'?

Elsewhere, the incoming House Energy and Commerce chairman Fred Upton [R-MI, 6th District] announced that the House will schedule a vote on repealing 0bamacare before President Obama's state-of-the-union address later on this month. Although the vote would be largely symbolic and almost certain to be vetoed by the President, Upton and other Republicans said they would plan on defunding or rolling back key provisions (the 1099 requirement for small businesses, the individual purchase mandate or the 'Stupak Amendment' regarding language in the bill on abortion) of 0bamacare.

BREAKING- Federal Judge in Virginia Rules 0bamacare Unconstitutional

A Federal Judge in Virginia's 4th Circut Court has struck down a key mandate in the healthcare legislation signed by President Obama back in March of this year.

Judge Henry E. Hudson stated on Monday that the provision that every American must purchase healthcare by 2014 or face a federally imposed fine exceeded Congressional authority under the Commerce or General Welfare Clauses.

"It is not the effect on individuals that is presently at issue -- it is the authority of Congress to compel anyone to purchase health insurance," wrote Hudson, who was appointed to the federal bench in 2002 by President George W. Bush.

"Every application of Commerce Clause power found to be constitutionally sound by the Supreme Court involved some form of action, transaction or deed placed in motion by an individual or legal entity. The constitutional viability of the minimum essential coverage provision in this case turns on whether or not a person's decision to refuse to purchase health care insurance is such an activity," he wrote.

Hudson's eagerly awaited decision invalidates the requirement that all Americans purchase health insurance by 2014 or face a federal fine. Hudson's decision is the first striking down part of the controversial legislation.

The lawsuit is just one of nearly two dozen challenges filed in federal courts across the country. Another high-profile suit filed in Florida and joined by 20 states and the National Federation of Independent Businesses will go before Judge Roger Vinson on Thursday.

The Obama Administration is expected to appeal Hudson's ruling.

Earlier in the year, the states of Oklahoma, Arizona and Missouri had passed ballot measures challenging 0bamacare as well.

Members to VFW- WTF? Veterans Of Foreign Wars PAC Endorses Liberal, Anti-Military Incumbents Over Actual Veterans

Something's rotten at the Veterans of Foreign Wars and their political action committee, and the rank and file VFW membership doesn't like it one bit.

I probably should've noticed something was amiss when the West Hartford, CT chapter of the VFW allowed truth-impaired douchebag Dick Blumenthal to stage his photo-op press conference and non-apology apology from their lodge back in May.

Now, the VFW is in trouble over endorsements their PAC has made for the 2010 midterms, including Barbara Boxer, Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi and Alan Grayson. Despite the uproar from membership, the PAC has refused to rescind their endorsements, citing some ambiguous criteria that skews heavily towards incumbents. Even after it was revealed that Boxer and Waxman used their positions to aid a radical leftist anti-war group to travel to Fallujah, Iraq (by way of Jordan) so they could deliver money and aid to families of insurgents. I mean, besides Speaker Pelosi using the military as her own personal Chauffeur for her and her family, we have Sen. Boxer who voted against funding for body armour and treatment of brain trauma for American soldiers back in 2007, much to Joe Biden's chagrin. So....again, I'd be really interested in knowing what the PAC's endorsement criteria is- because so far, it seems to be apple pie gee-aren't-our-GI's-swell-now-vote-for-me platitudes from leftist hacks specifically trotted out in the weeks before the election.

Although the VFW leadership was critical of 0bamacare's adverse effects on already-existing healthcare services for veterans and active-duty military personnel, the VFW PAC not only endorsed a number of candidates that voted in favor of 0bamacare [feel free to cross-reference the VFW-PAC's list of endorsed candidates with THE LIST- NANESB!] but liberal Democrat incumbents who are running against military veterans.

For instance, out of the 10 candidates on the revised Vets For Freedom PAC Operation 10 in 10, the VFW's PAC endorses 8 of their opponents and declines any endorsement in two other races- the open seat in Arkansas' 2nd district and the race between House Financial Services Chair Barney Frank and Marine Reservist Sean Bielat. There are post 9/11 veterans in California, Michigan and Arizona who's opponents are endorsed by the VFW's PAC as well.

This doesn't just apply to Republican candidates, either. The VFW's PAC also declined to endorse Democrat Matt Zeller, who served in Afghanistan and is running for the currently vacant seat in New York's 29th district.

Now, all this raises the rather obvious question. What's the point of having a PAC if it goes directly against the wishes of their membership? Will the VFW allow itself to be done in by its own PAC?