Tag: health care (page 4)

True to form, It seems Michigan's governor Rick Snyder is all about cronyism.  Up or down. About "partnerships", and complicit deal making with bigger government, and BIGGER business. Big. Big. Big.

Big.

The insurance behemoths that will briefly exist under a 'marketplace' of insurers will likely make a lot of folks quite well-to-do.  Though we should have little problem with entrepreneurial folks and making a buck, it is worth noting it ain't gonna be Joe six pack, but carefully selected recipients of the public's new expense of an insurance exchange.  As this develops, pay careful attention to the 'players', and note that prior to 2010, many of the businesses handling billions in insurance premiums didn't exist.

Same show. Same suckers. New ringmasters.

Step. Right. Up.

And the governor of our state is as-they-say, "all in". He apparently views such matters as one might view a Siamese twin sharing the same heart. So when the poison in the federal government is injected, we all feel the 'euphoria'. From the Detroit News:

The Michigan health insurance exchange required by federal law got a boost from Washington Thursday with a $30.6 million grant from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for planning and implementation.

The Michigan Affordable Insurance Exchange will be an online marketplace where insurance firms compete to sell low-cost health insurance to consumers. Gov. Rick Snyder hopes to form Michigan's exchange in partnership with the U.S. A blueprint for the plan is due to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on Feb. 15.

Michigan last year missed a deadline to try to form its own exchange because Republican legislators saw the move as backing President Barack Obama's 2010 massive health care overhaul.

Snyder wants the exchanges, apparently based on some funding that comes along with it.  But the funding is only temporary,and the rules for an exchange set up as "local" will not be allowed to carry the rules that local (state) citizens might want.  The default nature of a federal set of rules is in fact the reality NO MATTER who sets up the exchange.  The expense of ongoing operations of course will fall on the backs of  Michigan citizens.

Tomorrow at 830AM there will be hearings.  You may not be able to make it, but you can have your testimony entered into the record.

You can e-mail the Committee Clerk: Malika Abdul-Basir
E-Mail: mabdul@house.mi.gov and ask that your e-mail be entered into public testimony.  

House Standing Committee Meeting
Health Policy, Rep. Gail Haines, Chair
DATE: 11/29/2012
TIME: 8:30 AM
PLACE: Room 519 House Office Building, Lansing, MI
AGENDA: SB 693 (Sen. Marleau) Insurance; health; MiHealth marketplace; establish.

Any Republicans Reps who vote for this have a problem on their hands. Since the re-election of Barack Obama, conservatives, and other Republican activists have had to redouble efforts in stopping the implementation of Obamacare. And as observed during a conference call tonight they will likely prevail. A brief discussion of hitting newly re-elected speaker Jase Bolger with a recall faded quickly, though it will not likely be forgotten by some.  Bolger, who won by a narrow margin (roughly 800 votes) is being closely watched on the exchange issue and one other key issue close to the heart of traditionalists and conservatives; ALAC. (HB 4769)  The controversy surrounding the Roy Schmidt party switch also haunting him adds fuel.

If Bolger is seen on the wrong side of these issues by conservatives, and particularly the exchange, could be as damaging to the political careers of any reps who vote FOR the exchanges as a recall of Bolger might be.  One only needs to look at a simple mailing sent out during the primary season to understand how any perceived supporter of Obamacare will be permanently labeled. (below)

Recall a few years ago, Michigan AG Mike Cox slapped down the blues for a strange bust out into the for-profit insurance market.  At the time, Cox said:

"Blue Cross has built a huge surplus with the help of state tax breaks and rapidly rising insurance premiums.  They should be cutting health costs for Michigan families instead of diving deeper into the for-profit insurance industry."

Since that slap down, I have frequently imagined how the blues could be dis-assembled.  Not at all that I wanted to, but asking the question of HOW such a structured insurer of last resort might be dissolved at some point. And to be sure, given THAT situation, there ought to have been others inside and out of government who might have wondered as well.  Had it not been for AG Cox wagging the I-don't-think-so finger, a strange funneling of money to other 'for-profit' entities might have happened, costing rate payers dearly.  "Who might have been the recipients and concurrent stockholders in such an arrangement that hides cash flow from non-profit reporting requirements?" could have been the question at hand.

If nothing else, today's SCOTUS decision drives home the importance of locally electing the MOST CONSERVATIVE and CONSTITUTIONALLY minded politicians.  Its the only way to ensure this type of madness cannot continue to be placed in front of us.

"Buh .. buh .. but John Roberts is a conservative!" you say.

Yeah go figure.  Maybe there was a reason. Maybe Roberts had a stroke.  Maybe he was subjected to excessive gamma radiation.  His junk was being held hostage with a clamp? Anything. Any reason.

In the end, it doesn't matter.  

The 5-4 decision on the mandate was just that; 5 to 4.  It was a majority of the court that shouldn't exist. Roberts was joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan, who should never have been allowed to sit on the court in the first place.  Kagan, in fact, as solicitor general for the Obama administration formerly arguing FOR Obamacare should have recused herself.

He's not having a good 2012.

After getting pounded by the court in the health care litigation arguments (see here and here), he had to turn around less than a month later and argue that Arizona's immigration law, SB 1070, had been preempted by federal immigraton law.  The case, Arizona v U.S., featured another legal beat-down and, unlike the health care cases, the liberal wing of the court didn't exactly leap to his defense.  To top it off, his Arizona opponent was the same person he had faced in the health care cases - the great Paul Clement.

First, the gloating.

Yesterday, I wrote:  "Commerce doesn't exist to be regulated until people engage in commerce. The ACA forces people to engage in commerce, then regulates them."

Today at the Supreme Court, Justice Kennedy asked the Solicitor General: "Can you create commerce order to regulate it?"

Now, I'm not saying that Justice Kennedy checks out the Wizard of Laws before important arguments, but is it more than a coincidence that his first question to the Solicitor General echoed the Wiz?  Just sayin'.

Now, to business.

Round one is over, and the world waits anxiously for round two tomorrow in what is the most important Supreme Court case since Brown v Board of Education, and maybe since Marbury v Madison.

Today's Arguments

Today the Supreme Court heard arguments on whether it should or should not decide the health care cases because of the federal Anti-Injunction Act.  This law, passed in 1867, essentially provides that a tax cannot be challenged until it is paid.  One court found that, since the penalty (the alleged "tax") imposed by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) for not buying health insurance does not take effect until 2014, and since therefore no one had been forced to pay the tax yet, the challenge to the law is not yet "ripe" for decision.  

All the parties challenging the law and the federal government agreed that the the case is ready to be decided, so the Supreme Court had to appoint an attorney, Robert Long, to argue that the the Anti-Injunction Act barred the proceedings.  Things didn't go too well for him.

From the questioning, it was fairly apparent that the justices want to reach the merits of the ACA litigation.  Justice Sotomayor asked Mr. Long to describe the "parade of horribles" that would occur if the court decided to reach the merits.  Much fumbling ensued, leading Justice Scalia to observe "there will be no parade of horribles."  Justice Breyer pointed out that the statute calls it a penalty, not a tax, and Justice Ginsburg observed that it is not a revenue-raising measure since, if everyone obeys the law, there will be no revenue associated with the penalty.

When the Solictor General, Donald Verrilli, argued that the penalty is not a tax, Justice Alito snagged him with the conflicting positions taken by the Administration.  To get the case heard, Verrilli argued the penalty is not a tax; but to get the law upheld, Verrilli argues the penalty is a tax, an inconsistency upon which Justice Alito seized:

General Verrilli, today you are arguing that the penalty is not a tax. Tomorrow you are going to be back and you will be arguing that the penalty is a tax. Has the Court ever held that something that is a tax for purposes of the taxing power under the Constitution is not a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act?

Tomorrow the question is whether Congress has the authority under the taxing power to enact it and the form of words doesn't have a dispositive effect on that analysis. Today we are construing statutory text where the precise choice of words does have a dispositive effect on the analysis.

Based on the tenor of the questioning, I think there is little doubt the court will brush aside the Anti-Injunction Act in order to get to the meat of the case.

While we are talking in other stories on RightMichigan.com about compacts and severability, the 3000 plus pages of Frankenstein legislation we tenderly call "Obamacare" is rife with triggers, taxes and penalties.  One of the taxes callously affecting a part of the very superior medical care we enjoy.  Manufacturing. The part that is being transformed into a memory operated by billionaire and progressive Jon Stryker:

"Stryker, a maker of artificial hips and knees based in Kalamazoo, Mich., announced in November that it would slash 5 percent of its global workforce (an estimated 1,000 workers) this coming year to reduce costs related to Obamacare's taxes and mandates."

I wonder if Mr. Stryker feels conflicted about his support of progressive causes, and relationship with leftists, and the money making business side which provides not only a comfortable living, but real high paying jobs?

I'll bet he doesn't complain too much.