• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Morning Bell: Another Victory on the Road to Repeal

    “The unchecked expansion of congressional power to the limits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers. At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance—or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage—it’s about an individual’s right to choose to participate.” So wrote Judge Henry Hudson of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia yesterday in striking down Obamacare’s individual mandate. Specifically, Judge Hudson found that Section 1501 of the act, which forces all Americans to buy government approved health insurance policies, “exceeds the Commerce Clause powers vested in Congress under Article 1.”

    The White House and their leftist allies were quick to try and minimize this body blow to Obamacare, arguing that 14 previous court challenges have been dismissed by the courts. This desperate spin doesn’t even pass the laugh test. The 42-page decision is the first by a federal court this far along the litigation process and the first brought by a state (the case was filed by Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli). And soon Judge Roger Vinson of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida is expected to rule on an even larger challenge to Obamacare brought by 16 state attorneys general, four governors, two private citizens, and the National Federation of Independent Business.

    In an early stage of that litigation, Judge Vinson wrote: “The individual mandate applies across the board. People have no choice and there is no way to avoid it. Those who fall under the individual mandate either comply with it, or they are penalized. It is not based on an activity that they make the choice to undertake. Rather, it is based solely on citizenship and on being alive.”

    Judge Hudson used very similar reasoning in rejecting the Obama Administration’s claim that since “every individual in the United States will require health care at some point in their lifetime” the federal government has the power to force Americans to buy health insurance now. Hudson writes: “Of course, the same reasoning could apply to transportation, housing, or nutritional decisions. This broad definition of the economic activity subject to congressional regulation lacks logical limitation and is unsupported by Commerce Clause jurisprudence.”

    Judge Hudson then moved on to the Obama Administration’s claim that the individual mandate was actually a tax that would therefore make it constitutional under the General Welfare Clause. Hudson wrote: “This Court’s analysis begins with the unequivocal denials by the Executive and Legislative branches that the [individual mandate] was a tax.” It was only when the Administration found itself before a judge, not in front of voters, that the White House conveniently shifted its rationale. Judge Hudson saw through this deception, identified the individual mandate as the penalty it is, and rejected the Obama Administration’s mandate-as-tax claim.

    It was not a total victory for Cuccinelli, however. Judge Hudson rejected Virginia’s request to strike down the entire law. Despite claims by the President himself, and authors of the legislation like Senator Max Baucus (D–MT), Judge Hudson found that the Section 1501 was “severable” from the rest of the law and voided only that section and “directly-dependent provisions which make specific reference to 1501.” Judge Vinson, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court will all be free to revisit this issue.

    But whether or not courts will invalidate just Obamacare’s individual mandate is rapidly becoming irrelevant. Obamacare simply may not survive that long. It is already collapsing under its own financial and bureaucratic weight. Just last week, Congress voted to stop reductions in Medicare payments to doctors by raiding future revenues from Obamacare’s insurance subsidy program. The number of waivers the Obama Administration has to grant from Obamacare’s unworkable regulations grows each day. Doctors are telling pollsters they will leave the medical profession in droves if Obamacare is implemented as planned by 2014. And according to the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll Obamacare is now more unpopular than ever, with only 43 percent approving the law and 52 percent opposed.

    Obamacare will be repealed. It is only a question of when.

    Quick Hits:

    • At the signing ceremony for the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, First Lady Michelle Obama said of deciding what American children should eat: “We can’t just leave it up to the parents.
    • With yesterday’s Senate vote in favor of the Obama tax deal, our entire tax code is becoming temporary.
    • According to Gallup, one in three Britons would like to leave the United Kingdom.
    • A new report from the Congressional Oversight Panel for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) finds that the Obama administration’s Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) is likely to fulfill less than a third of its goal.
    • More than just a voluntary earmark ban is needed to cut spending and corruption in Washington.
    Posted in Obamacare [slideshow_deploy]

    33 Responses to Morning Bell: Another Victory on the Road to Repeal

    1. EJJ, Fort Worth, Tex says:

      I support a complete repeal of Obamacare, and replacement with elimination of discrimination of people with pre-existing conditions and allowing children to remain on their parents policies until age 22-26 (ie. to allow completion of a college degrees or multiple college degrees – bachelor, master, PhD.). The replacement provisions I've mentioned are not supported by Rush Limbaugh and are not in the true spirit of conservatism but they are the morally right things to do. Child labor laws and worker safety laws are not in the true spirit of conservatism either, but they are morally right things to have in place.

      As for Doctors claiming they will be leaving the profession, I suspect most of them are simply blowing smoke. Where else are they going to go? What else are they going to do to? It's not as if there are all these other places they can go to make more money even after the full version of Obamacare was implemented.

    2. Kyle Wright, Virgini says:

      Points:

      •If President Obama taught constitutional law, how lost and deceived were all his students.

      •A revelation at just unknowledgeable the progressives are in their understanding of the Constitution.

      •Just how deceptive this Administration and the progressives are in advancing their agenda. Now before a Federal court, the truth is revealed. It’s a TAX stupid.

      •Therefore, who and how can we trust this Administration. It appears that CHANGE went out the door and its politics as usual.

      •Does this violate President Obama’s promise to America that he would not increase the taxes on those who earn $250 thousand or less?

      Just some thoughts and observations!

    3. John C Pauls says:

      Would like your view on the Bilderberg Group. Is this as serious as it appears to be? What can one do? John

      http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/6571716

    4. Mary............WI says:

      I hope the WHOLE Obamacare bill can be repealed!

      The Republicans can start all over and give the American people what they want in healthcare reform. They need to carefully listen to the people and be realistic. We have the greatest healthcare system in the world ………let's not destroy it.

    5. toledofan says:

      Well, some good news for a change, but, I think, the road ahead is still going to be long and hard. November made the left wing of the Democratic party nuts and they are starting to see their entire agenda go up in smoke. We can only hope that January will be the start of something big.

    6. Ken Jarvis - Las Veg says:

      The BIGGEST Enemy is Murdoch

      As Proof look at the last election -

      He turned the people AGAINST AMERICAN VALUES,

      by convincing a LOT, that –

      If the RICH don't need it,

      nobody SHOULD HAVE IT –

      HCare for ALL – Consumer Protection.

      The HF and GOP ONLY supports the RICH

      if you are NOT Rich and YOU defend them,

      YOU ARE A FOOL.

      LVKen7@Gmail.com

    7. Blair Franconia, NH says:

      ObamaCare is unconstitutional? As they say in those old movies about newspapers, "STOP THE PRESSES!" However, the Obama Misadminstration, or as Rush Limbaugh calls it, the Regime, is floating down that river in Egypt called Denial. :)

      Seriously, yesterday, federal judge Henry Hudson, (no relation to the Anglo-Dutch

      explorer who has both a river in New York and a Canadian bay named after him);

      ruled that the central provision, the linchpin, of ObamaCare, the individual mandate,

      which is also part of RomneyCare, in my home state, the People's Republic of Massachusetts, was unconstitutional. As I said before, Minister of Information Washington Bob Gibbs, dismissed it. He said that "two other courts have ruled on it already we're confident it will be held to be constitutional." That's whistling past the

      graveyard. A court in Chicago and one Detroit are the only ones to say that the individual mandate was constitutional. The Virginia ruling wasn't unusual. Why?

      Because the Northern Virginia District is own as "the rocket docket" because cases tried there usually end up at the Supreme Court. As I said before, the Virginia ruling's NOT unusual. There are 19 other cases just like it. The next one to make it

      to the Supreme Court is in Florida. The Supreme Court has a choice to make: Take

      these 20 cases one at a time, or combine them into one super case. The argument

      before Judge Hudson was that if the individual mandate was taken out, the law would fall either flat on its face or flat on its fanny. Take your pick. I guess we could

      call Obama Cleopatra because he's the Queen of Denial. :) Sorry, I couldn't resist.

    8. Jim Delaney says:

      My lingering fear is that not all jurists are conservative or otherwise more responsibly inclined to adhere to the Constitution's original meaning and intent. My worry in that respect, of course, extends to SCOTUS as well. Over the years, federal courts have inexorably and dramatically diverged from original meaning and intent and the courts' faulty reliance upon "stare decisis" further aggravates that dangerous divergence. That said, I'm praying you're right about Obamacare's collapsing under its own weight before courts can inflict further damage to the Republic. My festering question is this: should Obamacare pass muster by the federal courts, what then? Will any of the 21 states assert their constitutional duty to nullify/interpose? Or, like in the past, will they again weakly submit to federal tyranny? Who or what remains to protect the people from this federal overreach? If our State reps are unwilling to protect us, then our founders make it crystal clear that "we the people", the final arbiters, are duty-bound to take matters into our hands. If that's what it takes, then so be it.

    9. djohnstlouismo says:

      There was an article published in the Washington Post yesterday, that stated this is a win win for them. After reading it, I am very concerned. Their contention is that if only the individual mandate to make citizens buy insurance is found unconstitutional, this will cause the insurance industry to become unprofitable more quickly and lead us more directly to a one payer system. The system will definitely fall apart and I'm not sure the Democrats will mind that if it gets them to their ultimate goal. This they contend will be the unintended consequence of not striking down the entire bill.

      DJohn

    10. David, Roanoke says:

      I had understood that in their haste to write this law, the Democrats did not include a "severability" provision, the purpose of which is to preserve whatever part of a law is not declared unconstitutional. If that is the case, if only one part of the law is unconstitutional, the whole law is unconstitutional.

    11. B. Hall Syosset N.Y. says:

      The Judge was absolutely correct. If the Federal Gov't can "force you to buy health insurance" it can force you to buy anything it deems necessary. A new American made car for example,Central Air conditioning, or anything else,or pay a healthy fine. The amount of which is totally up to congress. In an extreme emergency the Gov't could force every American over the age of 21 to buy a tank to defend our borders against an invasion. And don't give me the nonsense about Auto insurance.In fact I own a car without auto insurance. The plates are off and I do not drive it.One only needs insurance if you use public roads.You do not even need a drivers licence if you don't use public roads

    12. Ben C. Ann Arbor, MI says:

      Its about personal responsibility and the right to choose. Little by little we are losing our ability to make choices and our freedoms. Once you reach sixty five you MUST sign up for Medicare Part A. Today Medicare Part B payments are based on income – an indirect form of income tax. If you are over sixty five and want decent health insurance you have no choice – you must sign up for Medicare Part B to qualify for Supplimental insurance. My costs are now $2600 a year GREATER than before I reached sixty five years of age. And because I still work I get to continue paying the 15% Self Employment Tax. I am being penalized for working. My congressional representatives – all democrats, have not responded to the letters sent concerning this situation. Go figure.

    13. john arizona says:

      Where is Ken Jarvis suggesting that Ruppert Murdoch and the WSJ were behind this decision?

    14. Al from Fl says:

      Perhaps the Good Lord is still looking after this country. The dems are in power in the Senate and White House as we start next years legislative season but I hope that the house will lead the way by returning to the process as it was designed. Bills should be focused, should be debated and crafted carefully in the committee(s) and then brought to the floor. On the floor, amendments should be allowed and the chips fall where they may according to the representatives votes. With the republicans in power there, I would hope that common sense and the "good of the American People" will be the norm, not some ideological "we know better than the people" approach that the dems used. At least it is nice to know that the secular progressives vice grip in the House is no longer operative. Next stop, 2012 and, hopefully, more dems and progressives (in both parties) will be thrown out.

    15. Jeanne Stotler,Woodb says:

      This is good news for us conservatives, BHO himself needs to be found guilty of scamming the American people. We have many health Ins. policies available, the cost also vary but in the long run it is up to the individual to decide if they want INs. and how much, also they have the right to decide if they would rather buy the second or third car, new furniture, house etc than to carry Ins. If this bill is not repepaled there will be more uninsured as the rates are going to sky-rocket, my supplement policy is increasing by $15.00 and part B medicare is also going up, meanwhile SS doesn't get a COLA, Congress gets a 3% increase and most medical policies are getting as much as 15% increase in premiums. What did BHO say, it wouldn't cost us more and that premiums would go down???, again talking through his hat.

    16. Stow, Utah says:

      I was doing some reading last night (Liberty and Tyrrany) and it occured to me that Social Security, Medicade and Medicare all were crammed through congress under the same unconstitutional guise as Obamacare. They are all called Insurance, we are all forced to participate. FDR knew Social Security was a sham when he started it and now we owe well over $50 trillion in IOU's to paticipants. This cannot continue. We are paying off credit cards with other credit cards and when the final big bubble bursts there will be no bailout.

      The practice of lumping fedral tax dollars into a massive slush fund and spending willy nilly has to stop. We need to re-establish accountability in spending. We are going down the road to disaster and Obamacare is warp speed toward disaster..

    17. Jill, California says:

      Score one for the good guys!

    18. Larry White says:

      Not quite a year ago, conservatives and other concerned citizens could not conceive the fraud and manipulation President Obama would accomplish in getting ObamaCare passed. We have witnessed one of the most dangerous Presidential Administrations in American history.

      The voters, Tea Party activist and Heritage has responded. We must not relent; we must keep up the pressure on our new elected officials.

      But… what a difference a year makes! And , Thank you Judge Hudson (and Rick Santelli).

    19. Paul Rinderle says:

      Principles

      Lawmakers apparently are now voted in with the understanding they do not have to know what the laws are they are going to make and do they have to even read them –ever.

      A nation gone 3rd world.!

    20. Pingback: Tweets that mention The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. -- Topsy.com

    21. Ben C. Ann Arbor, MI says:

      Ken Jarvis – define "rich". I get really tired of the third person "they" when anyone makes an arguement for or against an issue. The top 400 hundred wealthiest people in the United States are worth 1.25 trillion as reported by Forbes Magazine. Even if you taxed them 100% you would not cover even half of this years budget let alone make a dent in our nations unfunded liabilities. The problem is spending, not taxing "the rich." It is smoke and mirrors by Obama – and you, Ken, have swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

    22. Jerry Porter, Freder says:

      This is a big fat joke. Obamacare comes from a President and his Administration that took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. And this President supposedly taught Constitution Law. One must ponder where these people are from? Planet X in another galaxy? They write laws and regulations that extend for thousands of pages that no one reads, no one understands, and no one really believes in. Is this Fairy Land Time?

      One wonders if they under the English language. Please remind the ObamaGang that it is "we the people" who bestowed powers to our individual states that, in turn, bestowed powers in "a very limited sense" to a Federal government; not vice versa. Who the hell do they think they are? Ayers disciples who suddenly inherited the U.S.A. with the election of Obama? Unbelievable! This makes Nixon look like an angel. If there was every impeachable acts, they are being committed now by members, advisers, or appointees of this Administration!.

    23. Pingback: ADF Alliance Alert » Heritage Foundation: Courts may invalidate, but Obamacare is already collapsing under its own weight

    24. Pingback: Orlando Political Press » Blog Archive » Another Victory On The Road To Repeal

    25. Pingback: Tweets that mention Morning Bell: Another Victory on the Road to Repeal | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News. -- Topsy.com

    26. Leon Lundquist, Dura says:

      Thanks Heritage. I read both twenty odd page Findings offered on our Site, you have made my Research a pleasure. Blue buttons in the text can be the most interesting part. I used to do Research for Colo Dept of Highways. I proofread Financials, Amicus Briefs (U.S. Supreme Court and Calif Supreme Court) for the largest Financial Printer in the world. Judge Vinson wrote a beautiful piece, quite readable. Judge Hudson almost pandered to Secretary Sebilius but in the middle when he put it all together? It was breathtaking in its clarity! The Government's case melted when these Judges revealed the Newspeak trick (in plain sight) "This is a tax" "This is not a tax it's a penalty" and finally "This is really a tax." The Congress must have known the difference and if it is a tax? It has to support the exact enumerated power granted in the Constitution to Regulate Interstate Commerce. Madam Secretary plays dirty pool, shifty as an Officer Of The Court trying to 'smuggle' an Unconstitutional Law past the Court!

      I cannot find grounds for Appeal, both Judges covered themselves in ample precident. Nobody touched the horrible truth that it might be unlawful for Communists to usurp the Democratic Party, and so they serve the Foreign Interest in destroying American Healthcare with Unconstitutional Law (I think it is a criminal act since Obama usurped power rather than open, honest election). Both Judges took a narrow view, and you see, nobody asked them to Find if the Congress actually Represented Americans! Nobody asked if the whole crazy mess was an Unconstitutional Form Of Government!

      The Judges did the best they could to characterize what the Congress did was suspect, and done in a way to mislead! I think Vinson and Hudson both powdered their opinions with fingerprint dust. You can see the dirty fingerprints all over the Act. They erred in separating out the Unconstitutional part and letting the corpse live on. If one part stinks and was put foreward with such duplicity, it stands to reason there is more. Well, for one, Unconstitutional Forms Of Government! Healthcare Czars who can pose million dollar fines and kill any (or every) Medical business. Ask me, that's Unconstitutional Power put in Obama's hands and stolen from the Congress (and the People).

    27. Leon Lundquist, Dura says:

      Pardon me: If it is a penalty, then it has to serve an Enumerated Power.

    28. HawkWatcher, Mi. says:

      The issue of severability is still unclear, but I believe Obamacare will be fully repealed, regardless of any last-minute Democrat lameass-duck shenanigans to prevent same. We didn't "shellac" the dims and moderates for nothing, and the conservatives we helped elect are coming soon. The redistribution schemes will all be halted, and we will keep electing regular Americans until we get Constitutional representation again.

      EJJ has it backwards; we're trying to increase availability and lower health care costs and, not raise them. Also, the limited duties of the federal government are described in the Constitution, and "morally right" is not referenced. At local and state levels, we can and do help the needy more efficiently. Will the libs ever get it? Charity starts at home, not in Washington.

      Ken is a blank slate type, and preferably ignored. I think he's here for entertainment value only. He never debates or comments on an article, and probably voted for Harry Reid a couple or three times. He makes me wonder how many other Kens there are…shudders…

    29. Tom Thorpe, Alexandr says:

      A PROPOSAL FOR HEALTH CARE REFORM

      I wish to propose the following specific reforms which I believe directly address the greatest problem with the American healthcare system, the illusion of free health care created by third party payment. I believe these reforms, if enacted, would provide a substantial amount of cost containment , provide much greater access to insurance coverage for the currently uninsured, and not require any significant additional government expenditure:

      1. All health care providers within a given geographic region would be required to publicly post prices, on a central internet website, for any and all services and products which they wish to provide. For complex services, such as surgery, all of the providers involved would be required to collaborate and provide a package price. For emergency or unanticipated services, providers would be required to charge no more than the average regionally posted price for any service rendered. The listed prices would be valid for anyone not covered by Medicare or Medicaid, regardless of age or whether or not they are insured

      2. All insurance companies would be required to pay out, for policyholders for which a specific service or product is covered, the average posted regional price minus a standard copayment set approximately equal to half the range of prices (perhaps within a standard deviation of the average) posted for that specific procedure. The amount paid by a policyholder for any service or product would then be the price charged minus the average regional price plus the standard copayment. The healthcare consumer could therefore control his bill by comparison shopping. As an example, suppose a specific procedure has an average posted price of $1,000, with most providers posting a price between $900 and $1100. If the standard copayment is then set at $100, the healthcare consumer has the ability by comparison shopping to vary his or her out of pocket expense from nothing to $200.

      3. Insurance companies would be required to offer the option of catastrophic insurance only, with an annual deductible chosen by the policy holder, to anyone currently insured through their employer or who can pass a physical exam to the satisfaction of an insurance company. Anyone insured through their employer would receive a premium discount appropriate to the annual deductible chosen. Policyholders would be credited with the average regional price for any service received before the annual deductible is satisfied.

      4. Health care consumers could receive a discount from providers by optionally signing an agreement with the provider, before any service is rendered, guaranteeing not to sue for malpractice, or possibly just not to sue for punitive damages, under any circumstances. Discounts would be regulated to be proportional to any reduction in malpractice premiums paid by the provider.

      The above proposals will greatly aid the uninsured in two ways. First, health care providers currently compensate for the high rate of non-payment by the uninsured by billing them at a rate far in excess of what is charged to anyone who is insured or covered by Medicare or Medicaid. This practice essentially places the financial burden of the uninsured who can’t or won’t pay on the uninsured who do pay. This practice is despicable and morally indefensible. Second, the availability of catastrophic insurance, with an annual deductible chosen by the policyholder, will place health insurance within the financial reach of a large number of the uninsured.

      Cost containment for both the insured and uninsured is achieved primarily by financially motivating the healthcare consumer to comparison shop.

      Finally, if Medicare was converted from its current form, paying 70- 80% of all medical costs, to one providng 100% of catastrophic care, with an annual deductible determined by income, Medicare recipients would then also be motivated to comparison shop.

    30. Royal Martin, N. Hol says:

      Why you can’t keep the health insurance coverage you like, no matter what President Obama tells you.

      The simple facts are that the overwhelming majority of American won’t be permitted to keep the health care plan they have, no matter what President Obama says as per PPACA and the Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 116/Thursday, June 17, 2010:

      A. For defined contribution plans where the employer either pays a given percentage of premiums or a stated dollar amount, except for a maximum one time contribution reduction of no greater than 5% of premiums, the employer must increase its contributions each year when the rates increase at renewal or an employee changes from one age-bracket to another to retain the plan’s grandfathered status. Thus, an employer is prohibited from reducing contributions in response to increased health insurance cost and must constantly increase contributions for health care ad infinitum in order to retain the plan’s grandfathered status.

      B. The employer is prohibited from increasing an employee’s or dependent’s coinsurance, deductibles, and out of pocket limits to offset increased rates. Since the overwhelming majority of group and individual health insurance plans are not customizable, the employer must retain the health insurance plan in effect prior to March 23, 2010 without benefit modification if it wishes to retain a grandfathered status. Since the employer may not reduce benefits it is faced with ever increasing rate increases that cannot be offset by benefit modifications or reductions.

      C. While the grandfathering regulations were recently revised, per the Federal Register, Doc. 2010-28861 Filed 11/15/2010 at 4:15 pm; Publication Date: 11/17/2010, to permit an employer to change insurance carriers provided that the replacement plan is less costly for the same benefits in existence prior to March 23, 2010, such replacement options are unavailable and the revised regulations illusory because:

      1 The replacement plan may not have any benefit reductions greater than those mandated under the grandfathering regulations of PPACA as published in the “Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 116/Thursday, June 17, 2010” that would otherwise cause the plan to lose its grandfathered status;

      2 In order for a health insurance plan to retain its grandfathered status, the replacement plan must have been in existence prior to March 23, 2010 with at least one enrolled employee continuously prior to and following that date, thus the insurance carriers are prevented from “cloning” other carriers benefit packages in response to the regulatory change permitting fully insured plan replacements;

      3 All major national and minor regional health insurance carrier do not offer customization of health insurance products for individuals or employers with 1 to 500 employees insured: they all offer “standardized policies” with limited variability of benefits. Customization of the health insurance is solely available to very large employers that generally have more than 500 employees covered in each plan offered, or to employers that self-insure their benefits. Thus, there are no carriers able to provide matching schedule of benefits to the greatest number of employers and the insured population that wish to change carrier but still retain a grandfathered health plan are prohibited by market forces from doing so: even to the extent that if they replace the existing plan with a program that provides benefits that are greater than the in-force benefits, then such a carrier and plan change is considered an abuse of the grandfathering regulations and the replacement plan loses its grandfathered status;

      4 An employer may not induce employees to switch to a plan that retains a grandfathered status, as such an action is considered an abuse of the grandfathering regulations and is punishable by fines and civil penalties in addition to the loss of the plan’s grandfathered status.

      In view of these formidable roadblocks crafted by an inherently progressive (aka, Marxist) 111th congress that were specifically designed and intended to prevent Americans from retaining their current health insurance carrier and/or plans and prohibited from making even nominal benefit revisions and decreases in employer contributions to offset ever increasing health care costs, few, if any, employers and individuals will be financially inclined or able to continue to fund these higher cost “grandfathered plans”, and in such a way virtually all Americans (except for politicians) will all be relegated into dust bin of State Sponsored Exchanges that will provide four pre-packaged PPO/indemnity plan designs and four pre-packaged HMO/pre-paid plan designs (aka, the platinum, gold, silver and bronze plans).

      Additionally, as the PPACA MLR regulations include agent commissions as a non-claim expense factor, and insurance agents may only be compensated by insurance carriers for their services as provided under all State Departments of Insurance regulations, there will be little if any margin available to compensate employee benefit specialists and insurance agents that serve as a buffer between both the government and the insurance companies for the benefit of the insured masses. And instead of dealing with experts, employers and individuals alike will be forced to work through non-licensed and ill trained telephone representatives through the State Sponsored Exchanges whenever they require assistance either with choosing the most appropriate health insurance plan, employee an individual enrollment matters, questions on benefits, denial of health care services, and non-payment of claims. Additionally, these non-licensed and ill trained exchange representative personnel will most assuredly become unionized through the likes of SEIU, and over a relatively short period of time acquire the generic and characteristic personalities routinely associated with the DMV, USPS and TSA.

      Thus, for any politician or regulatory agency to suggest that Americans may keep their current health insurance plan “if they like it”, is pure and unadulterated serial demagoguery, fiction, and political hyperbole; is factually inaccurate, grossly misleading, categorically erroneous, pathologically disingenuous, and ultimately a flat out lie perpetuated by Marxists (aka, progressives) for the sole purpose of placating the ignorant masses into the blind misconception that PPACA is “flexible” and in their best interest.

      The overwhelming facts are, in fact, quite exactly the opposite, namely that PPACA was specifically designed to restrict access to health care for the sole purpose of reducing and limiting the government’s health care expenses for the untold numbers of promises it has made to constituents that are unsustainable and thereby unenforceable by the very politicians who have made these promises for the sole purpose of reelection.

      In conclusion, after spending the last 36 years in the employee benefits business in California selling health insurance to my clients, when it comes to individual and group health insurance I can tell the difference between the truth and a bold faced lie.

      Very truly,

      Royal J. Martin

      President

      Royal J. Martin Insurance Agency, Inc.

      10148 Riverside Drive

      North Hollywood, CA 91602

      royal@rjmia.com

    31. Pingback: Lions’ defense dominates in win over Packers | hard drive recovery

    32. Dexter60, San Franci says:

      A good law serves to protect but a bad law only serves as a weapon.

      It not a problem of flawed ‘proposals,’ past or present, that these all hinge on some form of forced compliance upon the part of patient, provider, insurer or even govt. (i.e.- taxpayer) rather it is in the very nature shown (especially by the passage in this case of ObamaCare) of all laws that are implement by and installed with many levels of crass criminal intent.

      A Congress not of the People is a threat to the general health and welfare of our nation..

      The marketplace has always been and will be always be corruptible by internal and external forces with the purpose of suppressing the individuals control over their own lives, where the 'choices' are reduced to one option, Hobson's Choice — we have reach a point where this latest offer we cannot refuse will hasten bringing down this fledgling dictatorship by the current political class. The Republic is begging for re-birth. And this is just the beginning, in the midst of a flurry of crises and contradictory moves to divide and distract, the people can actually see they form an arrow pointing to the centers of power in what used to be our government and the names are writ large and often.

      Thus, this will end to the good.

      Unfortunately at a greater cost than has been squandered already even more so if this regime decides to resist the Constitution and the People a la Zelaya.

    33. Pingback: Another Victory on the Road to Repeal | Fix Health Care Policy

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×