Over 700 Entities Now Exempt From ObamaCare

The Obamacare Assault on the Rule of Law
Posted February 3rd, 2011

Mere hours after senior federal Judge Roger Vinson, a United States Naval Academy graduate, became the second federal judge to find Obamacare’s Section 1501 (the individual mandate) unconstitutional, an anonymous White House official called in to question Judge Vinson’s entire ruling, telling reporters, “There’s something thoroughly odd and unconventional about the analysis.” The only thing “odd and unconventional” here is that a White House official felt it imperative to undermine the legitimacy of a coequal branch of government. Unfortunately this incident just fits into a larger pattern of behavior that calls into question just how far this Administration will bend the rule of law to protect President Barack Obama’s signature accomplishment: Obamacare.

According to Heritage legal expert Robert Alt, Judge Vinson’s declaratory judgment binds the parties to the suit, which includes 26 states, the National Federation of Independent Business and the federal government. This means that, absent a court-issued stay, Obamacare cannot be further implemented as it pertains to these 26 states. So the White House now faces a simple choice: Will President Obama abide by a valid decision by a federal district court, or will he unilaterally ignore the rule of law? If the past is any indicator, the rule of law is in for a continued beating.

As former Member of Congress and Heritage Distinguished Fellow Ernest Istook documents, the Obamacare legislation contained unprecedented billions of dollars in advance implementation appropriations. The advance year appropriations were designed to completely bypass Congress’s annual budget process and go far beyond standard spending decisions for the current and following fiscal years. Some of these advance-implementation appropriations stretch 10 years into the future, far beyond President Obama’s term in office.

Then there are the hundreds of waivers reaching millions of Americans that are being granted piecemeal by the Obama Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Just last week, HHS granted 500 new waivers, more than tripling the number of groups exempt from Obamacare. Unions that gave heavily to President Obama’s election efforts accounted for 40 percent of all employees exempted from Obamacare last week. In all, more than 700 entities are now exempt from Obamacare, totaling 2.1 million people. Last night before the Senate voted on party lines against repeal of Obamacare, Senator Jim DeMint (R–SC) explained why this selective enforcement of the law must stop: “Most Americans don’t play these political games. They don’t have lobbyists and PACs, but I think they should all get a waiver too. I think we should name this repeal bill that we will vote on today ‘the great American waiver.’”

Health care is by far not the only arena where the Obama Administration has sacrificed the rule of law for its own political expediency. It has shredded the Constitution’s Appointments Clause to install its favored bureaucrats at regulatory agencies. Then there was the “outrageous and illegal” takeover of Chrysler, the shakedown of BP, the assertion that President Obama can rewrite our nation’s immigration laws simply by not enforcing them, the refusal to enforce anti-voting-fraud laws, and, back to Obamacare, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius threats to silence insurance companies.

One can understand why the White House was so visibly shaken by its federal court Obamacare loss. The 26 states that are party to the Florida suit will account for 266 electoral college votes in the next election. Throw in Virginia’s 13 electoral votes, where another federal court has ruled against Obamacare, and that brings the total to 279, which is more than the 270 needed to elect the next President of the United States.

But political expediency is never an excuse to skirt the rule of law, especially for our nation’s chief law enforcement officer. Congress could help the President make the right decision. In a couple of months, when the current continuing resolution that is funding the federal government runs out, conservatives could attach language to the next spending bill requiring all Obama appointees to abide by Judge Vinson’s decision.

 

Once again, I'd like to hear supporters of Obama care explain the exemptions. If it's so great why do so many want out? Why isn't congress participating? If it's best for the country as a whole why grant the exemptions in the first place? Isn't the idea behind socializing medicine to include everyone?

 

Second on that motion.

 

I think the explanation would go along the lines of global warming- ice bergs are a right of polar bears. Global warming must be stopped because it is out of control and infringing on the rights of the polar bears.

The very cold and very snowy winter we are having is a perfect example of what havoc global warming can cause. It must be stopped because after all, the polar bears will suffer if winters continue like this.

 

Obama care is nothing more then a way to fundamentally change our governments structure in such a way that in 20 years we will find ourselves in an America that is unrecognizable.

If we the people give the government the power to tell us what we MUST purchase, its only a matter of time before it can and will tell us what we CAN not purchase. Maybe that home you want to buy is too big for your family of three, you must have 5 people in your family in order to occupy that home. Maybe your using too much gas or electricity. Maybe your cars are too big and bad for the environment. Maybe to help the environment we will be allowed one car per family. Government will be in every aspect of your life and in way's many, many will object to but then it will be too late.

In Greece the size of the engine in your car corresponds to the size of your bank account. The larger the engine, the more "tax " you pay. Anyone driving more the 2000cc is usually loaded. Welcome to the new America. This will happen here in the name of "global warming" or climate change" or whatever new term they will use to pass regulations. I can see them on TV now, "we should make these people who ruin the environment pay more then those who don't. Class warfare, divide and conquer. It's brilliant and many people fall for it. It right under problem , reaction solution... It's all about getting the camel's head under the tent. Once the do they will be able to push the body through later....

People who support this stuff have no idea what's really going on and are simply looking at the top layer. They think reality is really as its presented to them on the television. They believe the government and in the reasons they give for the laws they want to pass. We need to stop looking at the top layer, peel the onion and look into the deeper , real reasons not the propaganda we are all spoon fed. Understand that our government doesn't give a crap about my health or yours, it all about control.

Edit: I forgot to mention that the elites of today are forgetting the lessons learned of the elites of past. In order to keep their power and rule over the people they must keep the people thinking that they are free. These lessons have been lost along the way and replaced with arrogance. But like the elites off the past, these new arrogant ones will learn that once the people realize they really aren't free, game over....

Nick

 

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/angi1vwUkQc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Where are libturds on the rare instances you want to hear from them?

 

You can see the waiver is (temporary) The waiver is because this companys cap how much to pay paymini med plans) And the new health law in 2011 is they can not do this anymore. So they let the company buy time until the new exchanges can offer better insurance and cheaper insurance for them to buy for their employees.





" In 2014, the Affordable Care Act will end mini-med plans when Americans will have better access to affordable, comprehensive health insurance plans that cannot use high deductibles or annual limits to limit benefits. In the meantime, the law requires insurers to phase out the use of annual dollar limits on benefits. In 2011, most plans can impose an annual limit of no less than $750,000.

Mini-med plans have lower limits than allowed under the Affordable Care Act. While mini-med plans do not provide security in the event of serious illness or accident, they are unfortunately the only option that some employers offer. In order to protect coverage for these workers, the Affordable Care Act allows these plans to apply for temporary waivers from rules restricting the size of annual limits to some group health plans and health insurance issuers.

Waivers only last for one year and are only available if the plan certifies that a waiver is necessary to prevent either a large increase in premiums or a significant decrease in access to coverage. In addition, enrollees must be informed that their plan does not meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act. No other provision of the Affordable Care Act is affected by these waivers: they only apply to the annual limit policy."

http://www.hhs.gov/ociio/regulations/approved_applications_for_waiver.html

 

I didn't know that, thanks.

 

Unions were BIG supporters of Odumbo and Obamacare... until they found out what was in it. THEN, they cried... HOLY CRAP! Don't want none of this... petitioned for a waiver. Odumbo's administration grated it to them... because they supported passage of the bill.

Anyone else see the irony in this?