TEA PARTY PATRIOTS:
King v. Burwell’s very existence says a lot about Obamacare (Video featuring Jenny Beth)
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/king-v.-burwells-very-existence-says-a-lot-about-obamacare/article/2561108
HEALTHCARE:
Kill Obamacare, or U.S. healthcare will suffer same fate as Britain
“A colleague of mine, a Conservative MEP, was cremated last month. Except he wasn’t: the hospital had released the wrong body to the undertakers. A second funeral has just been held with his actual remains — though, of course, nothing can be done for the family of whoever was cremated in error. We take such incompetence for granted; it doesn’t make the news. Even when something happens that is atrocious enough to generate headlines — the latest scandal being what an official report calls a “systemic cover-up” of baby deaths in a hospital in North West England — no one calls for the system to be overhauled. The truth is that, after 60 years of a state monopoly in healthcare, most of my countrymen are unable to imagine any alternative. It’s a vivid demonstration of what Milton Friedman called “the tyranny of the status quo”. In most fields of life, Britons lean toward the free market. Our political culture is Anglosphere rather than European, in the sense that even Leftist politicians have to cloak their schemes in the language of liberty and enterprise. But when it comes to the National Health Service, the reverse is true. Every party has to guarantee that the NHS budget will continue to rise, whatever the other austerity measures. No party will contemplate an end to the state monopoly. Which is why this is probably America’s last realistic chance to ditch Obamacare. Several aspects of it are being challenged in court, and the GOP has rallied behind an alternative plan — the one advanced by Representatives Scott, Flores and Roe — understanding that there is no point in attacking a policy unless you have a better one to put in its place. Many American conservatives fondly assume that, as the cost and contradictions of Obamacare become clear, voters will turn against it. But that’s not how it works. People are change-averse by nature. We cling to familiar mediocrity rather than risk the unknown. This is especially true when interest groups arrange their affairs so as to benefit from the status quo. Physicians, for example, were among the strongest opponents of the nationalization of British healthcare in the 1940s; now, they are among its keenest supporters. A similar shift is underway in the United States among the big pharma companies, who love the idea of doing cosy deals with officials controlling vast budgets. Whole new bureaucracies are springing into existence and, as Upton Sinclair liked to observe, “it is difficult to make a man understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it”. Healthcare engages us emotionally. British people will often say things like: “I won’t hear a word said against the NHS: it gave my Auntie Nora her new hip”. Of course, it’s the clinicians concerned who replaced Auntie Nora’s hip, but leave that aside. The odd thing is that they maintain this attitude even when things go horribly wrong…”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/kill-obamacare-or-u.s.-healthcare-will-suffer-same-fate-as-britain/article/2561140?custom_click=rss
Obamacare premiums to significantly spike: CBO
“Obamacare exchange customers could see a significant spike in their premiums over the next few years as insurers face pressures from both the government and the marketplace, the Congressional Budget Office said Monday in a new analysis finding Obamacare is both cheaper and less comprehensive than predicted. The CBO said the exchanges and other new medical coverage under the Affordable Care Act will cost the government slightly more than half a trillion dollars over the next five years, which is about $200 billion less than than the $710 billion projected when the law was enacted in 2010. Some of that is due to tweaks to the law, and to changing economic conditions, but the CBO and its fellow scorekeeper, the Joint Committee on Taxation, said medical care costs have also grown at a slower rate than projected, helping lower payments for both private care and for government programssuch as Medicaid and Medicare. “Although it is unclear how much of that slowdown is attributable to the recession and its aftermath and how much to other factors, the slower growth has been sufficiently broad and persistent to persuade CBO and JCT to significantly lower their projections of federal costs for health care,” the CBO said in its report. The lower costs are at least in part due to fewer people gaining coverage. The CBO predicted 11 million people will be enrolled in insurance exchanges in 2015, rising to 21 million next year. Both of those are lower than initial projections. Of those 11 million using the exchanges this year, about 8 million will be getting tax subsidies to help pay for their plans. The average subsidy is $3,960. By 2020, about 23 million Americans will be using the exchanges and 17 million will be getting government help, at an average tax payment of $5,070. At its peak over the next decade, the law is projected to help ensure that 91 percent of all residents have health coverage — still leaving a significant chunk of the population without coverage. The new health law estimates came as part of the CBO’s latest 10-year budget projections, which show the deficit this year likely to be about the same as in fiscal 2014, dropping slightly in 2016 and 2017, and then beginning a steady climb again to top $1 trillion by 2025. Taxes will average about 18 percent of gross domestic product over that decade, or about what the average has been in the last 40 years. Spending will average 22 percent of GDP, or slightly higher than the average in recent decades…”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/9/obamacare-premiums-spike-law-cheaper-expected/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
ObamaCare Sticker Shock: 2016 Premiums To Spike 8.5%
“The good news on ObamaCare premiums is history, the Congressional Budget Office signaled Monday, predicting nearly double-digit rate hikes in each of the next three years. Premiums will rise an average 8.5% annually over 2016-2018, the CBO projects, as the government phases out a temporary program reimbursing insurers for some expenses incurred by their highest-cost patients. The budget office also expects upward pressure on premiums as insurers, facing push-back on some of their aggressive pricing strategies, may “not be able to sustain such low provider payment rates or such narrow networks.” While higher rates won’t deter those who qualify for subsidies, they pose a problem for those who are ineligible and who so far exhibit much less interest than expected in ObamaCare plans offered via Healthcare.gov or the state exchanges. Unsubsidized Don’t Sign Up – Of the 8.8 million people who signed up for 2015 coverage via Healthcare.gov through Feb. 22, 87% qualified for premium tax credits, Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burrell said Monday, leaving just 13% of the group unsubsidized. Covered California, which accounted for almost half of all signups on state exchanges, said last week that 90% of its customers qualified for subsidies. For both Healthcare.gov and California, the subsidized share actually increased in 2015, contrary to expectations. Nationally, the CBO projected that unsubsidized enrollees would triple from 1 million in 2014 to 3 million in 2015. Yet, based on incomplete information available from other state exchanges, it now looks like about 1.7 million unsubsidized people selected ObamaCare exchange plans, and that number may dwindle as those who don’t pay drop out. After seeing preliminary signup data, the CBO cut its 2015 enrollment estimate from 12 million to 11 million, so the entire shortfall seems to come from those who pay full freight. The government is still hoping for more unsubsidized signups as the individual mandate affects uninsured Americans during the current tax filing season. While subsidies are officially available to individuals earning up to 400% of the poverty level, the actual ceiling can be much lower. Take a 40-year-old single person earning $35,010, or 300% of the poverty level, this year. The Kaiser Family Foundation health subsidy calculator shows that on the benchmark plan, the second lowest-cost silver, he would have to kick in as much as 9.56% of income, or $3,347, with the government paying any cost more than that amount. But the man’s plan actually costs less: $3,312. So the government would not have to chip in anything. The Obama administration is keeping its fingers crossed that the Supreme Court will uphold the legality of the health insurance subsidies issued via Healthcare.gov. Yet it also has reason to worry about untoward premium hikes for 2016, as Democrats prepare to defend the law in a national election. Insurance Aid Waning – The White House delayed phasing out its three-year reinsurance program in 2014 so that insurers would expect government reimbursements to start once a patient’s costs top $45,000 in 2015. In 2016, reinsurance won’t kick in until costs top $90,000. That alone could add about 5% to premiums next year. A second temporary program known as risk corridors also emboldened insurers to keep rates low initially as they vied for customers in the new marketplace, but payback may come in 2016. A December budget deal cut off any funding to recoup insurer losses — other than the profits of participating insurers who earn more than an 8% profit margin.
With no certainty that there will be any risk-corridor money, some analysts have said they expect 2016 exchange premium pricing to be less aggressive. Overall, the CBO cut the expected ObamaCare cost on Monday, say ing that health cost data through 2013 suggest a slowdown may endure. Also, the agency lowered its long- term ObamaCare enrollment target by a couple of million.”
http://news.investors.com/Politics-ObamaCare/030915-742654-obamacare-premiums-to-jump-enrollment-subsidy-heavy.htm?ven=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PoliticRss+%28Politic+RSS%29
Obamacare exchange customers set for significant premium spikes, CBO predicts
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/9/obamacare-premiums-spike-law-cheaper-expected/
CBO: ObamaCare subsidies to cost 11 percent less
“The federal government will spend 11 percent less than expected on ObamaCare subsidies over the next decade, according to new figures from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The drop in federal spending is the result of lower-than-expected enrollment figures as well as a slower-than-expected rise in healthcare spending, the office said. CBO officials also predicted an $8 billion rise in spending on Medicaid, the low-income insurance program, over the next two years, due to unexpectedly high federal spending in the first four months of 2015. Millions of people gained Medicaid coverage under ObamaCare, which encouraged states to expand the program. The Obama administration has attributed much of the slowdown in new enrollment figures to the new piecemeal approach to Medicaid expansion after the Supreme Court courted in 2012 that states had to opt in to sign more people up for the program. Officials have also pointed to uncertainty about the fate of employer-sponsored and individually purchased insurance plans in the new marketplaces. Subsidies were first doled out in 2014, costing a total of $15 billion. That cost is expected to rise to $41 billion in 2015, when more people receive subsidies, and eventually rise to $107 billion in 2025. The subsidies are now expected to cost $1.3 trillion. With the smaller price tag for subsidies, the CBO now expects a major decrease in the federal deficit to the tune of $431 billion over 10 years. The cost of subsidies is far dwarfed by overall spending on Medicare, the healthcare program for seniors, and Medicaid. The two programs cost a combined nearly $1 billion in 2014. The spending on Medicare and Medicaid is expected to balloon to 1.1 trillion and $576 billion per year, respectively, within 10 years. The office also expects that about 1 million fewer people are expected to gain healthcare under ObamaCare. It now expects 24 million previously uninsured people to gain coverage. The budget office had last released ObamaCare projections in January, when it projected a 20 percent decrease in total spending of the law’s insurance programs.”
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/235053-cbo-cost-of-obamacare-subsidies-shrinks-again
Obamacare to cost less than previously thought due to lower enrollments
“Obamacare’s insurance coverage will cost 11 percent less than previously estimated over the next ten years largely due to fewer people getting coverage, according to new budget estimates. The Congressional Budget Office released a report Monday outlining the costs for the health insurance provision of the healthcare law over the next decade in addition to other budget projections.The report notes that the net cost to the federal government over the next decade will be $1.2 billion, which is $142 billion less than the office estimated back in January. The reason for the lower cost is twofold. The first is a lower estimate of the costs of subsidizing health insurance through the law’s exchanges. The second is a slightly lower estimate of the number of people who will gain insurance coverage because of the law, the CBO said. The CBO now projects the law will reduce the number of people without health insurance by 24 to 25 million. The agency also estimates lower costs for the exchange subsidies, which will be $849 billion over 2016 to 2025, a 20 percent decrease below previous projection. The reduction is a result of projections of slower growth in premiums and a slightly lower exchange enrollment. The federal cost of additional enrollment in Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Protection will be $847 billion, which is 8 percent less than January’s projections. The reduction is due in large part because about 2 million fewer people will enroll in the programs than earlier projections. The projections were released less than a week after the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in King v. Burwell, which focuses on whether the government can dole out subsidies to federal-run exchanges. The court could choose to wipe out subsidies for residents in 36 states.”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamacare-to-cost-less-than-previously-thought-due-to-lower-enrollments/article/2561243?custom_click=rss
Obamacare’s projected cost falls due to lower premiums under health care law, CBO says
“The estimated cost of President Obama’s signature health care law is continuing to fall. The Congressional Budget Office announced on Monday that the Affordable Care Act will cost $142 billion, or 11 percent, less over the next 10 years, compared to what the agency had projected in January. The nonpartisan agency said the Affordable Care Act will cost less for two essential reasons. The first, and most significant, is that health insurance premiums are rising more slowly, and thus requires less of a government subsidy. In addition, slightly fewer people are now expected to sign up for Medicaid and for subsidized insurance under the law’s marketplaces. That’s because the agency now says that more people than anticipated already had health insurance before the law took effect, and fewer companies than anticipated are canceling coverage. All in all, three million fewer people are expected to sign up for Affordable Care Act provisions by 2025. Still, by 2025, the CBO estimates “the total number of people who will be uninsured … is now expected to be smaller than previously projected,” because more will have had health insurance to begin with. All around, it’s positive news for Obama’s law, which has been accused by Republicans of killing jobs and draining federal coffers. Indeed, the CBO itself warned last year the health care law could reduce full time employment as some chose to give up work that provided health care as they relied instead on the government’s subsidies. The administration’s own poor handling of the ACA’s online launch in the fall of 2013, combined with other errors, also have tarnished the law’s image among many Americans. And to be sure, the law is still expensive — expected to cost $1.2 trillion over 10 years. But the cost of the law has been falling for several years, and now analysts are beginning to assess the evidence of the law’s impact from its first-full year of implementation. In March 2010, the CBO predicted that the law would cost $710 billion during the period from 2015 to 2019, without trying to come up with projections beyond that. After several revisions, the law is now expected to cost $506 billion – 29 percent less — during those same five years, as shown in the chart…”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/03/09/obamacares-cost-is-falling-as-fewer-receive-coverage-under-health-care-law-cbo-says/
CBO: Slowing costs reduce price of health care overhaul
“Slowing health care costs are driving down the price tag of President Barack Obama’s health overhaul, just as the Supreme Court is weighing whether to strike a key part of the law. Estimates released Monday reduce the projected cost to taxpayers by $142 billion over the next decade. That’s an 11 percent drop from previous estimates. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office cited two reasons for the decline: Health insurance premiums are rising slower than projected, and new data show there were fewer people without health insurance before the law. Fewer people without insurance means slightly fewer people will need to take advantage of the law to gain coverage, CBO said. Still, over the next decade, the budget office said 24 million to 25 million people a year will get coverage because of the law. White House spokesman Josh Earnest called the projections the “latest in a long line of data points” showing that Obama’s health law was holding down health costs and generating economic benefits for families and businesses. He said one of the goals of the legislation was to address the threat that growing health costs pose to the broader economy. “We’re pleased to see that even after just a few years of being in effect, that the impact is both noticeable and positive,” Earnest said…”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/9/cbo-slowing-costs-reduce-price-of-health-care-over/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
Mental health coverage unequal in many Obamacare plans
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/03/09/johns-hopkins-study-shows-obamacare-plans-lack-mental-health-parity/24439947/
State, federal health exchange enrollment nears 11.7M
“Nearly 11.7 million people were enrolled in an Obamacare plan through Feb. 22, Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell said Monday. That number will continue to increase because of extended enrollment periods through April for those who learn of the penalties for not having health care while they are doing their taxes. But as of now, Burwell said more than half of those who signed up were new customers. Of the 4.2 million consumers who were re-enrolled, more than half (2.2 million), came back to the Marketplace, updated their information and actively selected a plan. Almost 7.7 million people —or 87% —who chose a plan through HealthCare.gov qualified for an average tax credit of $263 per month, Burwell said. Burwell also touched briefly on the case heard by the Supreme Court last week that puts at risk the tax credits for those in the 34 states that use the federal exchange. “We’re confident we will prevail,” Burwell said “The law is clear.” Those who support this lawsuit are “content to roll back the progress that we have achieved together,” Burwell said to a group of supporters and others who helped enroll people at the White House. A decision in this case, King v. Burwell, is expected in June. The new numbers reported by Burwell ran through a week-long extension that HHS granted to people who couldn’t sign up by Feb, 15 because of problems with Healthcare.gov or its call center. Due to the length of new tax-related special enrollment periods in many states running their own exchanges and for Healthcare.gov, many more people are expected to sign up. “It’ll likely go up several hundred thousand more during the tax season (special enrollment period) as well,” Charles Gaba, who runs the private ACAsignups.net site, said in an email. “Heck, if they manage to rack up another 700K or so, they’ll hit my 12.5M figure after all.”
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/03/09/hhs-secretary-sylvia-burwell-obamacare-enrollment/24655491/
Latest figures show nearly 12 million enrolled in Obamacare
“Nearly 12 million people signed up for Obamacare through the end of last month, according to top administration officials who took a victory lap on Monday. Of the 11.7 million that signed up through healthcare.gov or state-run exchanges as of Feb. 22, more than half are new customers, Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell said during a White House event Monday celebrating open enrollment figures. The figure is more than the 11.4 million initially reported after open enrollment ended on Feb. 15. The period was extended until Feb. 22 to give people already in line time to finish their applications. The latest totals inch the administration closer to the Congressional Budget’s Office’s estimate of 12 million enrollees during open enrollment. The administration already beat its own estimate of 9 million signups. Burwell also took the opportunity Monday to express confidence that the administration will uphold millions of subsidies in a hotly contested legal case. “The law is clear,” she said. “The text and structure of the law state individuals in every state are eligible for tax credits.” Plaintiffs in the case King v. Burwell, which the court heard oral arguments on last week, beg to differ. The plaintiffs, spearheaded by the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute, say the law allows subsidies only for residents in state-run health exchanges, and not 36 states covered by healthcare.gov. Burwell has told members of Congress there is no backup plan in case the court strips subsidies, which will affect nearly 7.7 million individuals…”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/latest-figures-show-nearly-12-million-enrolled-in-obamacare/article/2561260
Officials hope good ObamaCare numbers sway court
“The administration got a wave of good news Monday about ObamaCare that it hopes will sway the Supreme Court to uphold the health law in full. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) again lowered the expected price tag for ObamaCare, pointing to lower healthcare spending nationally. And at a packed White House event later on Monday, Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell announced that the number of people signing up for ObamaCare is continuing to rise. A total of 11.7 million signed up this year, according to the government’s preliminary estimates. The health secretary highlighted the figures in warning of the potential fallout if the high court rules against ObamaCare subsidies in King v. Burwell. “Those who support this lawsuit believe that the law should be dismantled or repealed and they are content to roll back the progress that we have achieved together,” she told the crowd…”
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/overnights/235114-overnight-healthcare-will-obamacares-good-news-day-help-in-court
HHS chief hails new ObamaCare numbers in appeal to court
“Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell hailed new ObamaCare enrollment numbers on Monday, pressing the Supreme Court not to gut the healthcare law. She said at a White House event that 11.7 million people had signed up for insurance under ObamaCare’s marketplaces through the extended period of Feb. 22. That is up from the 11.4 million people previously announced through Feb. 15. Burwell directly addressed the case of King v. Burwell, which was argued before the Supreme Court last week and could strip subsidies from 7.5 million people in the roughly three dozen states using federal marketplaces under ObamaCare. “We’re confident that we will prevail in the court,” she said. “The law is clear. The text and structure of the Affordable Care Act demonstrates that individuals in every state are eligible for tax credits,” she added. Burwell highlighted the enrollment numbers in states that use the federal marketplace and would lose subsidies if the high court upholds the plantiffs’ challenge. Almost 1.5 million Floridians receive an average subsidy of $294 a month, she said. More than a million Texans get an average of $239. More than 500,000 North Carolinians get $315. “These numbers show just how important the tax credits are to millions of Americans and to the insurance markets in those states,” she said. Burwell also questioned the motives of the conservative groups and Republican lawmakers who support the lawsuit. “Those who support this lawsuit believe that the law should be dismantled or repealed and they are content to roll back the progress that we have achieved together,” she said…”
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/235080-hhs-chief-hails-new-obamacare-numbers-in-appeal-to-court
HHS secretary: Supreme Court ruling against Obamacare would harm millions
“Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell on Monday rebuked critics who want the Supreme Court to invalidate Obamacare’s subsidies in much of the country, saying such a ruling would harm millions of Americans who “need, want and like” their health coverage. Appearing at the White House, she said nearly 11.7 million new and returning customers selected a health plan on the law’s health exchanges through Feb. 22. That figure is 300,000 higher than the 11.4 million she touted after the Feb. 15 deadline to get covered for 2015, as the administration gave HealthCare.gov customers in 37 states an extra week to finish up their applications. Mrs. Burwell explicitly touted government subsidies that help American purchase plans on the Obamacare marketplace and averaged $263 per month for each enrollee. That’s notable, beacuse a challenge before the Supreme Court has put the fate of those subsidies in doubt in at least 34 states. The justices heard oral arguments in the case, with challengers saying the administration is breaking the law by paying the tax credits to customers in states that rely on the federal HealthCare.gov exchange. The law says subsidies can be paid to customers in exchanges “established by the state.”…”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/9/sylvia-mathews-burwell-supreme-court-ruling-agains/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
GOP governor endorses idea to extend ObamaCare plans
“Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) on Monday endorsed an idea put forward by some congressional Republicans to help soften the impact of a Supreme Court ruling against part of ObamaCare. In an op-ed in the Tulsa World, Fallin supported Congress passing financial assistance to let people temporarily keep their ObamaCare plans. Without such assistance, millions of people would lose insurance in the roughly three dozen states using federally run marketplaces if the Supreme Court strikes down subsidies to help people afford coverage.
“We hope that Congress would offer targeted, temporary relief for people to maintain their current coverage while we work together on free-market, consumer-friendly solutions for the future,” Fallin wrote. Such temporary assistance has also been put forward in proposals by Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) and by Sens. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.). The latter proposal says the temporary assistance will give lawmakers time to work out a plan to give states more “freedom and flexibility” to create their own solutions. Fallin also pushes for a state-based approach. “As policy solutions are created by Congress in the aftermath of the Supreme Court ruling on King v. Burwell, we encourage options that would allow the states the opportunity to innovate and offer health insurance that better meets the needs of our citizens,” she wrote. Fallin also cast doubt on an option to allow states to create their own marketplaces to keep the subsidies flowing if the court rules against the Obama administration. “We want to make sure people are able to keep their health insurance,” she wrote. “But many governors do not want to be forced to create a state exchange or see our citizens lose coverage.”
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/235035-gop-governor-endorses-idea-to-extend-obamacare-plans
SCOTUS tosses lower ruling on birth control mandate
“The Supreme Court on Monday tossed out a lower court’s ruling that required the University of Notre Dame to cover all forms of birth control for its employees under ObamaCare. The ruling from the Supreme Court gives new life to an appeal from Notre Dame, which has sought an exemption from ObamaCare’s contraception mandate because of its religious ties. A federal appeals court in Chicago previously ruled that Notre Dame could not be exempt because it was not a substantial burden on its religious rights. That court is now asked to revisit its decision in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Hobby Lobby case last summer. Before that ruling, any company without an explicit religious affiliation would face fines if it refused to cover birth control for its female employees…”
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/235045-supreme-court-tosses-lower-courts-ruling-on-obamacare-birth-control-mandate
Supreme Court to lower court: Reconsider Obamacare birth control mandate
“The Supreme Court told a lower federal court Monday to reconsider a ruling that forced Notre Dame University to comply with Obamacare’s birth control mandate. Justices vacated the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in light of their high court’s later decision in the high-profile “Hobby Lobby” case. In that instance, the justices said closely held corporations did not have to comply with the contraception rule if covered drugs or services violated their religious or moral beliefs. Religious liberty groups hailed the decision as a significant strike against the mandate, an outgrowth of the Affordable Care Act that requires employers to insure contraceptives as part of their health plans. “This is a major blow to the federal government’s contraception mandate. For the past year, the Notre Dame decision has been the centerpiece of the government’s effort to force religious ministries to violate their beliefs or pay fines to the IRS,” said Mark Rienzi, senior counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which has led a nationwide charge against the mandate. The Supreme Court’s move underscores the Obama administration’s years-long struggle to allay religious nonprofits’ objections to the mandate. On two occasions, it has offered an olive branch to faith-based universities, charities and hospitals that object to the mandate. The opt-out clauses, which would absolve the nonprofits from paying for contraception while making sure their employees still obtained the drugs and services, have been rebuffed both times…”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/9/supreme-court-reconsider-contraception-mandate/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
Supreme Court gives nod to Obamacare birth control challenge
“The Supreme Court has told a lower court to reconsider whether the University of Notre Dame gets to entirely bow out of the Obama administration’s birth control mandate. The Catholic school was told a year ago by a federal appeals court that it must abide by rules from the administration laying out how its employees and students should get insurance coverage for birth control. Because it’s a religious school, Notre Dame can ask an insurer to provide the coverage directly so it doesn’t have to fund contraception, which it morally opposes. But the Supreme Court now says that decision should be revisited, in light of the 2014 Hobby Lobby ruling, where the justices exempted some for-profit businesses from complying with the mandate. The requirement stems from the Affordable Care Act, which says employers must provide workers with certain health insurance benefits. On Monday, the justices vacated the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and instructed the court to reconsider it. The move could signal that some justices are sympathetic to Notre Dame’s argument that it shouldn’t have to participate in the process of providing birth control coverage at all. Under the administration’s rules, the school must sign a form delegating the coverage responsibility to a third party. “This is a major blow to the federal government’s contraception mandate,”said Mark Rienzi, senior counsel of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. “For the past year, the Notre Dame decision has been the centerpiece of the government’s effort to force religious ministries to violate their beliefs or pay fines to the IRS.”…”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/supreme-court-gives-nod-to-obamacare-birth-control-challenge/article/2561244?custom_click=rss
Supreme Court Throws Out Ruling Against Notre Dame in Obamacare Fight
http://www.christiantimes.com/article/supreme.court.throws.out.ruling.against.notre.dame.in.obamacare.fight/51449.htm
SCOTUS throws out Notre Dame contraception mandate ruling
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/09/scotus-throws-out-notre-dame-contraception-mandate-ruling/
Veteran Affairs manager pokes fun at mental health issues with photo of elf begging for Xanax
“A manager and licensed social worker at a Veteran Affairs Medical Center in Indianapolis apparently sent an e-mail that pokes fun at the mental health problems by showing a combat veteran as a Christmas elf ready to hang himself with holiday lights and another begging for a hit of Xanax. The Dec. 18 e-mail, was obtained by the Indianapolis Star. It shows pictures of a toy Christmas elf posing as a patient in what appears to be the hospital’s transitional clinic for former troops. The paper reports that the woman who sent the e-mail is Robin Paul, who manages the hospital’s Seamless Transition Integrated Care Clinic. The clinic provides returning veterans with transition assistance. When initially asked about the e-mail, Paul responded, “Oh my goodness.” She then referred a reporter to the hospital’s public affairs department, which e-mailed the Star a statement for her: “I would like to sincerely apologize for the email message and I take full responsibility for this poor judgment,” Paul said. “I have put my heart and soul into my work with Veterans for many years. I hold all Veterans and military personnel in the highest regard and am deeply remorseful for any hurt this may have caused.”…”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2015/03/09/veteran-affairs-manager-pokes-fun-at-mental-health-issues-with-photo-of-elf-begging-for-xanax/
Lovely. VA manager mocks veteran suicides
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/09/lovely-va-manager-mocks-veteran-suicides/
VA manager mocks veteran suicide in internal email
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/9/va-manager-mocks-veteran-suicide-internal-email/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
IMMIGRATION:
Social Security Administration Expects Beneficiaries of Obama’s Amnesty Will Be Covered Starting Later This Year
“Illegal immigrants who take advantage of President Obama’s executive actions on immigration will soon collect another benefit: Social Security. Starting in 2017, the Social Security Administration expects that thousands of undocumented immigrants will begin collecting from the Old-Age, Survivor’s, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program as a direct result of the president’s actions. In a letter to Republican senator Ron Johnson, chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, the SSA’s chief actuary Stephen Goss indicated that an additional 16,000 people will begin collecting OASDI benefits come 2017, and that the number of beneficiaries would continue to increase for 40 years thereafter, topping out at 695,000 people. Goss’s projection may underestimate the number of potential beneficiaries, however, as it assumes that 50,000 fewer illegal immigrants will enter the country each year starting in 2016. What’s more, the SSA is proceeding as if nothing has changed in the wake of a federal judge’s injunction against Obama’s November 2014 executive actions. Goss tells NRO that he expects 58,000 new workers will be covered under the OASDI program later this year, although they will not be eligible to collect benefits immediately. “Based on the best advice and counsel we have gotten, we’re working on the assumption that these [executive actions] will persist,” Goss says. “Most indications we seem to get are that it’s likely that this will get back on track, with some delay.” Goss notes that a law, additional regulation, or another executive action by Obama or a future president could alter the way SSA calculates and administers OASDI benefits, but says that he does not expect the court’s order will ultimately succeed in changing anything.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/415109/social-security-administration-expects-beneficiaries-obamas-amnesty-will-be-covered
Tax Refunds To Illegals Under Obama Immigration Action Would Be Stopped By Bill
“Whatever one thinks of the President Obama’s aggressive executive action on immigration—which is still being litigated in the courts—tax refunds for the effected illegal immigrants has itself become controversial. The IRS says that illegals can file and claim refunds for the last three years under the Earned Income Tax Credit. That is the same refundable tax credit that is responsible for billions in fraudulent refunds. IRS Commissioner Koskinen confirmed this, explaining the seemingly bizarre result to Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa). What if you never had any income or never filed a return? Under President Obama’s executive action, an illegal immigrant can (1) get a Social Security number, (2) claim the Earned Income Tax Credit for the three open tax years, and (3) IRS sends three years of tax refunds. No matter that you never paid taxes, never filed a return, worked off the books, etc. The IRS says this is the way the Earned Income Tax Credit works. IRS Chief Koskinen says the IRS is following a 15-year-old opinion that “a taxpayer may claim the Earned Income Tax Credit for a taxable year using a social security number (SSN) acquired in a later taxable year.” Calling the three year tax refund perk a mockery of the law, Senator Grassley noted that illegals would be able to claim billions of dollars in tax benefits. Sen. Grassley vowed legislation to overturn the IRS position. “ The tax code shouldn’t reward those who broke our immigration laws,” he said. So far, the President hasn’t backed down, so U.S. Rep. Patrick McHenry has introduced a bill to keep undocumented workers from receiving the Earned Income Tax Credit, a benefit for low- to moderate-income taxpayers. “My bill is a direct result of the (IRS) announcement,” said McHenry, a Republican who represents the 10th District, which includes Gaston County. “It’s very simple. If you’re not here legally, you should not be able to access the Earned Income Credit. It’s for the American taxpayers who are trying to make ends meet.” Congressman wants to block tax credit for illegal immigrants. Illegals in the U.S. covered by President Obama’s recent action can apply for tax breaks going back three years. Rep. McHenry thinks there is a great chance for fraudulent returns, noting that even if undocumented workers were employed in the past, many may have used Social Security numbers that didn’t belong to them. That in itself is fraud…”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2015/03/09/tax-refunds-to-illegals-under-obama-immigration-action-would-be-stopped-by-bill/
GOP bill blocks illegal immigrants’ access to child tax credit
“Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) has introduced legislation to prevent illegal immigrants from claiming a tax credit meant for low-income people with children. Westmoreland’s measure would require tax filers to provide Social Security numbers in order to qualify for the Additional Child Tax credit (ACTC). Currently, illegal immigrants can use individual tax identification numbers to apply for the credit when filing tax returns. “With so many families struggling with the recovering economy and the burden of our tax code, it’s time we provide solutions that give American families relief while upholding the integrity of the law,” Westmoreland said in a statement. The bill is part of a trend amid tax filing season of Republicans offering measures to prevent illegal immigrants from accessing tax credits. Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) introduced a bill last week titled the “No Free Rides Act” to ensure illegal immigrants cannot qualify for the earned income tax credit, another tax break meant for low-income families…”
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/235075-gop-bill-blocks-illegal-immigrants-access-to-child-tax-credit
Amnestied Illegals May Receive Social Security As Early As 2017
“Illegal immigrants who take advantage of President Obama’s executive actions on immigration will soon collect another benefit: Social Security. Starting in 2017, the Social Security Administration expects that thousands of undocumented immigrants will begin collecting from the Old-Age, Survivor’s, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program as a direct result of the president’s actions. In a letter to Republican senator Ron Johnson, chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, the SSA’s chief actuary Stephen Goss indicated that an additional 16,000 people will begin collecting OASDI benefits come 2017, and that the number of beneficiaries would continue to increase for 40 years thereafter, topping out at 695,000 people. Goss’s projection may underestimate the number of potential beneficiaries, however, as it assumes that 50,000 fewer illegal immigrants will enter the country each year starting in 2016. What’s more, the SSA is proceeding as if nothing has changed in the wake of a federal judge’s injunction against Obama’s November 2014 executive actions. Goss tells NRO that he expects 58,000 new workers will be covered under the OASDI program later this year, although they will not be eligible to collect benefits immediately. “Based on the best advice and counsel we have gotten, we’re working on the assumption that these [executive actions] will persist,” Goss says. “Most indications we seem to get are that it’s likely that this will get back on track, with some delay.” Goss notes that a law, additional regulation, or another executive action by Obama or a future president could alter the way SSA calculates and administers OASDI benefits, but says that he does not expect the court’s order will ultimately succeed in changing anything. The Social Security Administration appears to be the latest Obama administration agency to ignore the federal judge’s injunction, moving forward as if it posed no legitimate threat to the president’s actions. U.S. Customs and Border Protection continues to circumvent the judge’s injunction, adhering to the relaxed border protection and enforcement standards laid out by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson in the wake of the executive actions. And, as the Justice Department noted last week, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services began granting applications related to Obama’s executive amnesty well in advance of the date authorized by the president…”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/415109/amnestied-illegals-may-receive-social-security-early-2017-ryan-lovelace
NYT: HISPANIC JOB GROWTH SURPASSING WHITES, BLACKS
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/09/nyt-hispanic-job-growth-surpassing-whites-blacks/
‘MATERNITY TOURISM’ COMPANY: ‘PARENTS TO GET THE GREEN CARD’
“Court documents related to warrants for the raid Mar. 3 of “maternity tourism” scheme Starbabycare and several other such enterprises in Southern California detail translated portions of that company’s website, which state that the company had served 8,000 pregnant women since 1999. A chief selling point of the baby hotel scheme was allegedly the potential to procure U.S. financial assistance and green cards for foreign parents without quota restrictions. On February 2, 2015, a CBP Officer fluent in Chinese visited the website for Starbabycare, www.starbabycare.com, who then translated some of the website contents. Where the website listed “about us,” the officer translated the words, “founded at Los Angeles in 1999.” That section of the site also claimed that since its founding, Starbabycare alone had served 8,000 pregnant women, with 4,000 of those coming from China. The company called itself the “pioneer of maternity services” and the “number one designated maternity service to the pregnant mother from China, Hong Kong and Taiwan.”…”
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/03/09/maternity-tourism-company-parents-to-get-the-green-card/
Navajo Nation eyes immigration program to boost its economy
“Navajo Nation officials hope to lure foreign investments by using a carrot provided by a federal immigration program. The Daily Times (http://goo.gl/NumRD6 ) in Farmington, New Mexico, reports that an immigrant investor program known as EB-5 offers legal residency to foreign investors who start a new business or rescue an existing one in the United States, including on tribal lands. Navajo Nation President Ben Shelly said using the EB-5 program could help create jobs and accelerate the tribe’s economy with outside investment. Albert Damon is executive director of the Navajo Nation Division of Economic Development. He said economic development on the Navajo Nation has been hampered by a lack of startup capital and that using the EB-5 program may help solve that…”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/9/navajo-nation-eyes-immigration-program-to-boost-it/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
NAACP Leader Slams Obama’s Executive Amnesty: ‘Our Kids Have Dreams Too’ [VIDEO]
“A local NAACP president spoke out against how illegal immigrants are using up public resources that would have otherwise gone to people of color in the country legally on “The Laura Ingraham Show” Monday. Bob Ross, president of the Maryland Prince George’s County NAACP, was on the show to discuss his efforts to lobby against Prince George County’s efforts to create two high schools specifically for recent immigrants and dedicated to teaching students English. The local NAACP chapter is vocally against the proposal, with Ross calling it ”separate but equal.” “67 million — almost 68 million when you round it — spent on illegal immigrants children’s education [in Maryland],” Ingraham noted. “What is your reaction to that?” “It’s a lot of money, and our resources can’t handle it here in Prince George’s County,” Ross said. “We’re fixing to lose about $68 million statewide, on the local level we’re losing about $10 million of school funding. So, I don’t know how we’re going to handle this, the cost factor.” “Why isn’t the national NAACP not kicking up a huge public fuss on this amnesty push by the president?” Ingraham asked…”
http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/09/naacp-leader-slams-obamas-executive-amnesty-our-kids-have-dreams-too-video/
Retribution: King Says Boehner Canceled Trip After Immigration Fight
“Speaker John A. Boehner canceled a foreign trip by Rep. Steve King in retribution for his opposition to Boehner’s cave on “clean” Department of Homeland Security funding, according to the Iowa Republican. King told a local radio station last week that he was all set to travel abroad on “a very important diplomatic mission,” when he suddenly got word that official funding for the trip had been canceled. It’s payback, King said, for his opposition to funding the Department of Homeland Security because the bill didn’t explicitly block President Barack Obama’s immigration executive actions. “[The trip] had been signed off on, certified, authorized, everything all booked,” King told Iowa talk show radio host Simon Conway. “The order came down from the speaker’s office, ‘that shall be rescinded.’ And the people who [Boehner] most objects to for disagreeing with him are now grounded to the United States by order of the speaker. “This is retribution on the highest scale,” said King. He added that the “appetite is growing” among House conservatives to formalize a coup against Boehner, R-Ohio, who is still taking some heat for allowing the chamber to vote on “clean” funding for the department. Typically, members ask for approval and funding for work-related trips, commonly known as CODELs, from the chairmen of committees most relevant to the nature of the excursions. Boehner’s office would not comment on King’s allegation, but it wouldn’t be the first time this year that GOP leaders have sought to make examples of members who step out of line. When Rep. Daniel Webster, R-Fla., made himself a nominee for speaker on the House floor at the start of the 114th Congress, his membership on the speaker-appointed Rules Committee was revoked; a fellow Florida Republican and Rules colleague Richard Nugent, who voted for Webster for speaker, was also removed from the panel’s roster. There have also been murmurings that Majority Whip Steve Scalise, R-La., will strip his whip team of members who vote against procedural measures to bring bills up on the chamber floor. In King’s case, his opposition to the DHS bill might have just been a final straw in a pile-up of rebukes to leadership and the GOP establishment, not the least of which was his vote for someone other than Boehner for speaker back in January. A source familiar with House Republican campaigns told CQ Roll Call that King’s unwillingness to give back to the party is particularly glaring in light of what the party has done for him…”
http://blogs.rollcall.com/218/steve-king-immigration-reform-boehner-retribution-dhs-vote-canceled-codel/?dcz=
Judge delays ruling on unblocking Obama immigration executive actions
“A federal judge signaled Monday that he has no plans to act soon on the Obama Administration’s request to stay an order blocking President Barack Obama’s latest round of executive actions on immigration. U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen said in an order issued Monday afternoon that he views as serious claims that federal government lawyers may have misled the court about the implementation of new immigration policies the president ordered in November. Last week, the Justice Department advised Hanen that the federal government issued new year “deferred action” grants and work permits to 100,000 people between November 24 and when Hanen blocked the Obama moves on February 16. The group of 26 states whose lawsuit persuaded Hanen to block the Obama immigration actions recently filed a motion calling the federal disclosure “surprising” and asserting that Justice Department lawyers had assured the court that no action would be taken to implement Obama’s new policies until mid-February. Obama’s moves announced in November expanded eligibility for the “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” program and initiated a new program for illegal immigrants who are parents of U.S. citizens or permanent residents. However, there was a third part to Obama’s new actions: he extended the “deferred action” period protecting certain immigrants from deportation from two years to three, and authorized the issuance of three-year work permits as well. Hanen, who sits in Brownsville, Texas, said Monday that he wants a more complete explanation of what happened. “Due to the seriousness of the matters discussed therein, the Court will not rule on any other pending motions until it is clear that these matters, if true, do not impact the pending matters or any rulings previously made by this Court,” Hanen wrote. He set a hearing on the matter for March 19 and ordered that Justice Department lawyers “be prepared to fully explain to this Court all of the matters addressed in and circumstances surrounding” the notice the feds sent the judge last week. A Justice official who asked not to be named said Hanen’s ruling was being reviewed…”
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/03/judge-delays-ruling-on-unblocking-obama-immigration-203730.html
WH ORDERED BACK TO COURT TO EXPLAIN ALLEGED FALSE FACTS IN AMNESTY CASE
“The judge who blocked President Barack Obama’s executive action on immigration has ordered the Justice Department to answer allegations the government misled him about part of the plan. U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen has ordered federal government lawyers to appear in his court March 19 in Brownsville. The hearing is in response to a filing last week in which the government acknowledged some deportation reprieves were granted before Hanen’s Feb. 16 injunction. Government attorneys had previously said officials wouldn’t accept such requests under Obama’s action until Feb. 18. The government said in its filing that the 100,000 immigrants who were granted three-year reprieves and work permits were already eligible under a previous immigration plan from 2012. The 26 states suing over Obama’s plan requested more information…”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/09/judge-orders-hearing-after-obama-admin-grants-100000-illegals-work-permits/
Judge orders hearing on allegations in immigration lawsuit
“The judge who blocked President Barack Obama’s executive action on immigration has ordered the Justice Department to answer allegations that the government misled him about part of the plan. U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen ordered Monday that the lawyers for the federal government appear in his court March 19 in Brownsville. The hearing is in response to a filing last week in which the government acknowledged three-year deportation reprieves were granted before Hanen’s Feb. 16 injunction, which temporarily halted Obama’s action, sparing from deportation as many as 5 million people in the U.S. illegally. The Justice Department said in court documents that federal officials had given 100,000 people three-year reprieves from deportation and granted them work permits under the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, which was not halted by Hanen’s injunction. But the 2012 program guidelines provided just two-year deportation reprieves and work permits. Obama’s new immigration action would expand that to three years, and Justice Department attorneys had previously said federal officials wouldn’t accept requests under an expansion of DACA until Feb. 18. A coalition of 26 states suing to stop President Barack Obama’s executive action on immigration alleges the government misled the judge about not implementing part of the plan before the judge temporarily halted it. Hanen’s injunction put on the hold the federal government’s immigration actions regarding DACA as well as a program that would extend deportation protections to parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who have been in the country for some years. The Justice Department attorneys have asked Hanen to lift his hold while they appeal the ruling to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. In his order Monday, Hanen said that he will not rule on any other motions until after the March 19 hearing….”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/9/judge-orders-hearing-on-allegations-in-immigration/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
Immigration reform looks dead in this Congress
Republican leaders show little interest in returning to the issue after the Homeland Security fiasco.
“Singed by their defeat in the battle over Homeland Security funding, Republicans aren’t about to renew their fight against President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration anytime soon. When the GOP-controlled Senate bent to Democratic demands to fund the Department of Homeland Security, effectively undercutting conservatives who were willing to allow the agency to shut down until Obama backed down, there was talk of Senate GOP leaders returning to the immigration issue to find new ways to thwart Obama’s orders. But few within the GOP expect any kind of immigration debate in the Senate in the foreseeable future. The issue has been relegated to the back burner as Republicans instead focus on the budget, trade deals and, possibly, tax reform. “At this point, we have a lot of other issues to do,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who authored stand-alone legislation to block Obama’s immigration directives. “I’m very happy the Department of Homeland Security is funded, and I think the issue of the president’s overreach with his executive order of last November is probably going to end up being decided by the courts. And that’s not a bad option.” Senate Republican leadership aides also indicated that the chamber is not likely to return to the Collins legislation in the next several weeks — a work period that will be dominated by anti-trafficking legislation, nominations, a fiscal 2016 budget and perhaps an Iran bill. In the House, committees are humming along on some immigration bills, but leadership has shown no indication when — or if — they will come to the floor. The inaction on immigration comes as the GOP is trying