Nicholas Angel: How could this be for the greater good?
Neighbourhood Watch Alliance: [all together] The Greater Good.
Nicholas Angel: Shut it!

Hot Fuzz 2007

Autism is a disorder, really a neurological condition that is typically diagnosed early in childhood that is characterized by huge difficulties in communication and forming relationships with other people. These challenges are due to the way the people with this condition use language and interpret abstract concepts.

My son is a four year old on the autism spectrum. He sits in the mild side, and has been in treatment for a while to treat his various developmental struggles. He is far from alone in these struggles. The autism spectrum is a wide range of severities of this disorder but it is said that more than 1 in 100 kids (more like 1 in 88) sits on the spectrum and requires some kind of treatment. These treatments can be shockingly costly.

Many of these treatments have been covered by our insurance company as every therapy he has been in was prescribed by a medical professional. He has been to neurologists, speech therapists, occupational therapists, all kinds of stuff. The co-pays alone would boggle your mind.

Then we come to today. He goes to one of his two regularly weekly scheduled speech therapy appointments that, until this week has been covered. The health care provider puts in an authorization request for treatment before his appointment (as is their normal procedure), and it is denied. That is strange, why now, why not a week ago?

Something strange is afoot at the Circle K you say?

Wait for it, this gets worse.

It turns out that under the Affordable Care Act they, according to the insurance company, they are required to only cover these types of therapies for “restorative reasons.” What is a restorative reason you ask? They can cover more but it is at their discretion. So, what company would do so if they don’t have to? Well certainly not this one.

Put another way if he had been in an accident and lost the ability to speak they would help, otherwise they won’t. Autistic kids are out of luck I guess, at least to go through a qualified private insurance covered speech therapist.

I was angry for a variety of reasons mostly because this is landing on us with no warning.

So, I asked, what is going on? When did this change?

Oh a letter was sent out 3 days ago? On Friday, and today is Tuesday? Nice, I guess I haven’t gotten or read that yet but ok.

I asked the question, what are these kids supposed to do? Have no shot in life? Medical professionals can prescribe a treatment and unless you can afford the $250-$400/week in cost out of pocket your kid is just out of luck?

No, that isn’t the case, the insurance company representative says. I can appeal (which they told me would in all likelihood be denied but I can do it), or I can go to the local school system department of special education.

So let’s review:

  • Covered last week not covered today
  • Costs of my policy go up year over year
  • Out of pocket just increased by at least $1000/month for a procedure prescribed by a medical professional (and that doesn’t include all the increases in copays elsewhere).
  • Coverage is shifting away from treating those with diagnosed disabilities, sort of.
  • Because of his age he might be covered merely by an already overspent public school system according to the insurance company (the school district disagrees).

Put another way the ACA through some convoluted process just shifted what should be a medical procedure onto the school system?

I guess they wanted the federal deficit numbers to look better for the kids they have to cover through the subsidies? Could that be the case? Surely not…No, they would never forget to tell the whole truth right?

Does that seem like how things are supposed to work?

It appears as though we are playing a shell game of which part of the government goes into debt to do the job it was design to do. Also this brings to mind what qualifications the school system has to do therapeutic treatments that should be done by someone trained specifically for this purpose. Or is the Department of Education just working its way into all aspects of our life so that it never gets cut back and only grows?

Whatever the reason is this monstrously large bill that was supposed to bring down costs is certainly having issues proving its worth beyond some kind of procedure requiring a band aid or the most cursory of treatment.

As an interesting PS to this story. I was on twitter venting about this and got pounded by several people from one of the two major political parties. One statement said, basically, I didn’t get it and that it was all for the “greater good.” Another insane defender of all things done by one party said that, essentially, not that long ago no one got anything.

The “no one got anything” statement is interesting because instead of fixing the problem by making sure everyone gets something we are stripping coverage on an obviously pre-existing condition and blaming corporate greed. I am my wits end with the partisan garbage. We no longer care about solving problems in this country merely about assigning blame. We do this while parents have to figure out how to help the very small children that we are supposed to be doing all of this to help. I will find a way to make sure Emmit gets what he needs, but it sure would be nice to be able to keep the coverage I liked, without that price going up yet again or coverage being reduced even further, but I can I can keep my doctor if I pay for it out of pocket while paying the insurance company to do less with more.

I guess we hoped, and we got change.

Tim I. PhD

-Author of the bestselling novel Forest of Assassins

Amazon.com Widgets

Update:  DTG:  “The Greater Good” Boy that argument sounds familiar:

*********************************************************************

The name niche market principle applies to DaTipJar.

For a Donald Trump the 22K that would cover my expenses for the and the extra $10K that would pay for the roof, car, floor kitchen and bathroom repairs that I had to put on plastic would be nothing and if my traffic was the size of a Drudge getting enough people to kick in to cover those bills would likely not be an issue.

But I have to take things as they are so if you like what you see here including my paid writers like Tim Imholt and have a little extra you can spare.  I’d appreciate it if you would hit DaTipJar





My goal for 2015 is Twenty Two grand which will give me a nominal living doing this.

Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. (including my writers like Fausta)  If I can get to Forty Thousand I can afford to travel outside of New England and/or hire me a blogger to help me get it done.

Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done and then some.

Choose a Subscription level
Beanie : $2.00 USD – weekly
Cap : $10.00 USD – monthly
Hat : $20.00 USD – monthly
Fedora : $25.00 USD – monthly
Grand Fedora : $100.00 USD – monthly

Additionally our subscribers get our podcast emailed directly to them before it show up anywhere else.

If you could kick in I’d really appreciate it.

 

 

By Steve Eggleston

Unless you’ve been in a cave the last 2 days, you know that the Supreme Court once again rewrote what Justice Antonin Scalia has taken to calling SCOTUSCare to judicially extend tax subsidies for purchasing health insurance to the poor and middle class purchasing insurance on federally-established insurance exchanges. Much has been made over said subsidies, with the Congressional Republicans preemtively saying that had the letter of the law been applied and said subsidies on the federally-established exchanges been struck down, they would rush in to “temporarily” allow those subsidies to happen through 2017.

However, the case itself was never about the subsidies themselves, but rather the penalt…er…taxes that those subsidies allowed to be applied. Indeed, both the majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts and the dissent written by Scalia admit that it is all about the tax, and in Roberts’ case, preserving what he transformed from a penalty to a tax.

As Scalia points out, the phrase “Exchange established by the State” appears innumerable times throughout the law. Indeed, it expressly defined the word “State” as “each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia”.

The goal of limiting the subsidies to those in states where the state set up the exchange rather than the federal government was to put political pressure on the states to be the proverbial bagmen for the federal government by offloading the cost of the exchanges from the federal government to the states. That the Democrats failed in their attempt to blackmail the states into becoming their bagmen (a wise fiscal decision, as those states that set up, or tried to set up, their own exchanges are finding to their peril) is not something for the IRS, or six Lawgivers-In-Black, to “correct”, especially when the Republicans said that they would do the “correcting” on at least a temporary basis.

The elimination of said subsidies in states with federally-established exchanges would, in a plain-text reading of the law, also eliminate the threat of the individual non-insurance tax for every couple, virtually every multi-member family, and most single people making between 100% and 400% of the poverty level in those states as the cost of the second-cheapest “silver” insurance plan would rise to above 8% of their income. Similarly, the two types of employer non-insurance tax are predicated on at least one “full-time” employee (that is, one who worked at least 130 hours in a given month) getting subsidized coverage, with the elimination of the subsidy eliminating the liability of those employers operating solely in those states.

Roberts, in defending his 2012 declaration that the individual tax is indeed a tax, admits that result would cause great financial harm to the overall SCOTUSCare scheme. Again, the role of a judge, even a Supreme Court Chief Justice, is not to save the other branches of federal government from bad financial bets through judicial rewrites of law, especially since Congressional Republicans vowed to do just that.

I guess we could count ourselves “fortunate” that my darker prediction of Roberts and his fellow Lawgivers-In-Black finding a way to keep the taxes fully-intact while striking down the subsidies didn’t happen. On the other hand, given the Congressional Republicans were going to fully-cave (though supposedly temporarily) on the issue of subsidies, I doubt that allowing them to keep the fig leaf of Kabuki Theatre Opposition will much matter. It will simply take a bit longer for them to do the expansion of SCOTUSCare that they previously did for Social Security (thrice) and Medicare.

I saw this tweet from the University of Colorado English Department this evening:

I didn’t realize today was Orwell’s birthday but the irony of that quote is astounding considering Justice Robert’s Old Yellowstain’s words here:

The Affordable Care Act contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting. (To cite just one, the Act creates three separate Section 1563s. See 124 Stat. 270, 911, 912.) Several features of the Act’s passage contributed to that unfortunate reality. Congress wrote key parts of the Act behind closed doors, rather than through “the traditional legislative process.” Cannan, A Legislative History of the Affordable Care Act: How Legislative Procedure Shapes Legislative History, 105 L. Lib. J. 131, 163 (2013). And Congress passed much of the Act using a complicated budgetary procedure known as “reconciliation,” which limited opportunities for debate and amendment, and bypassed the Senate’s normal 60-vote filibuster requirement. Id., at 159–167. As a result, the Act does not reflect the type of care and deliberation that one might expect of such significant legislation.

and this other Orwell quote on language:

Political language… is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

applies here as well

Petitioners’ plain-meaning arguments are strong, but the Act’s context and structure compel the conclusion that Section 36B allows tax credits for insurance purchased on any Exchange created under the Act.

  I think these examples confirm the truth of Justice Scalia’s dissent and confirms this tweet of mine in response to the Colorado English Department acknowledgement of Orwell:

I think George Orwell’s birthday deserves recognition but I suspect it would have been better for the country if they just sent flowers.

Update:  An old question answered:

Of course they could both be true depending of how she defined “diabolical”.

********************************************************************

If you like what you see and want to help support me & my magnificent seven please consider helping us make our annual goal.

My goal for 2015 is Twenty Two grand which will give me a nominal living doing this.

Olimometer 2.52

That gets all the bills paid. (including my writers like Fausta)  If I can get to Forty Thousand I can afford to travel outside of New England and/or hire me a blogger to help me get it done.

Consider Subscribing 100 Subscribers at $20 a month will get the job done.

 

Our June Premium for tip jar hitters of $50 or more is Elizabeth The Anchoress Scalia Strange Gods: Unmasking the Idols in Everyday Life

Subscribe at $50 or more in and receive each monthly premium shipped the date of your payment.

All Tip Jar hits of $10 or more will get a copy of Jeff Trapani’s excellent E-Book Victor the Monster Frankenstein.

By A.P. Dillon

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina just announced a big rate hike. The reason?

Obamacare.

Grandfathered plans will see a double-digit hike around 13.5%, but those who have plans transitioned under Obamacare are going to have a coronary. Their rates will jump anywhere from 19.2% to 25.7%.

“Affordable HealthCare Act”. ‘A Family of four will see a reduction of $2500’.  Riiiiight. 

Triad Business Journal Reported:

Customers with so-called “transitional plans” — those plans purchased after the passage of the ACA and allowed to be continued by the Obama administration in 2013 — will see the highest jump, with an average increase of 19.2 percent.

WRAL also reported:

Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina has asked state regulators for a 25.7 percent average rate increase on individual insurance plans purchased under the Affordable Care Act for 2016.

Gee, if only someone had warned the people this would happen. Oh wait.. someone did.

North Carolina Senator Thom Tillis, who beat Obamacare supporting incumbant Kay Hagan in 2014,  issued a statement. In the statement, Tillis called for an ‘off-ramp’ from Obamacare:

“Today’s announcement that North Carolinians covered under the President’s healthcare law will be hit with more crushing premium rate increases is yet another confirmation that the Affordable Care Act is not affordable and is creating hardship for millions of families. Hardworking Americans deserve an off-ramp from ObamaCare to a patient-directed healthcare market that will control costs and give them more freedom to make their own healthcare decisions.”

These hikes are hitting in other states, not just North Carolina.

Tennessee has it worse, Blue Cross is spiking rates up to 36% next year. New Mexico is getting slammed with a 51% hike.  In Michigan, a hike by Blue Cross of over 11% is sought, amongst other insurers that seek up to a 37% increase.

Hawaii, whose Obamacare exchange is imploding, will see a huge hike – 49%.

Wall Street Journal reports hefty increases in multiple states, the average of which is 29% or more.  The Wall Street Journal also notes these hikes must be justified to the Obama administration.

Flashback to 2010: Feds fire warning shot to health insurers
Flashback to 2012: Insurance Industry Warns Of Higher Rates Due to Obamacare

Reminder, this past March, President Obama taunted those who criticized Obamacare. Gee, Mr. President, We Told You So.

 

DM7 small LL1885A.P. Dillon resides in the Triangle area of North Carolina and is the founder of LadyLiberty1885.com.
Her current and past writing can also be found at IJ Review, StopCommonCoreNC.org and Watchdog Wire NC.
Catch her on Twitter: @LadyLiberty1885

By Steve Eggleston

After the high-profile failures of Oregon’s and Massachusetts’ state-run health-care exchanges, and the near-failures of several other state-run exchanges this time last year, the proponents of ObamaCare were hoping that the blood-letting of the remaining state-run exchanges was at an end. Indeed, there hadn’t been any further failures. According to an editorial in The Orange County Register, that’s about to change, with the biggest domino, Covered California, poised to fail.

Up until this year, Covered California had been using $1.1 billion in federal grant money as its major source of money to finance its operations. There will be no more federal money going into Covered California, or any other state-run exchange, as that spigot was shut off on January 1. Meanwhile, in accordance with ObamaCare dictates that the exchanges be “self-sufficient”, California’s legislature has prohibited the use of general state funds on Covered California.

According to The Register, Covered California currently says it expects to lose $78 million in Fiscal Year 2016 (July 1, 2015-June 30, 2016). It seems people haven’t been signing up as expected. As of the original deadline for 2015 coverage, February 15, Covered California was 300,000 short of its planned goal. Two extensions of that deadline, to April 30, have not, at least so far, appeared to come close to closing that gap. According to a study by Alavare Health, Covered California had the 3rd-worst enrollment growth, at 1%, and the 4th-worst re-enrollment rate, 65%.

After looking over the presentation given to the Covered California board at its March meeting, I’d say that $78 million projected loss looks to be a bit “optimistic”. Under what it termed the “medium” scenario, the expected FY2016 loss is $104 million, which would bring the cash reserves down to $184 million. Supposedly expenditures will drop and revenues increase, but given the combination of the First Rule of Government Expenditures (spending never actually decreases) and the overly-optimistic nature of revenue projections, Covered California isn’t long for this world.

Of course, the Congressional “Republicans” have the “fix” – explicitly allow the federal exchange to offer subsidies if the Supreme Court strikes down the executive-based version. They claim it would be “temporary” and would come with the repeal of the individual and employer mandates regarding health insurance, but given their other hard turns to the left (including approving Loretta Lynch as Attorney General), it will neither be “temporary” nor come with the repeal of any mandates.

by Timothy Imholt

For anyone who has read my blog posts you know I have opinions that really don’t fit with either of the two major political parties. I sit in a zone that is forgotten about largely called the common sense zone, and there is no place for that in government.

I have the Uncle Steve Imholt who recently retired. He spent multiple decades as a software engineer before becoming a software engineering manager for very large programs. He is no stranger to figuring out budgets, costs, and weaving his way through government forms. I should point out that many of the software programs he managed were for government contracts. The point is, if he can’t navigate through the hurdles of a Healthcare exchange program, who can?!?!?!?!

I got this email from him recently that made me wonder how we are all going to survive the “Affordable” Care Act Rollout. I won’t render any opinion on this entire healthcare law other than to say two things. There are some aspects of my family’s life that were once covered that now aren’t. The other is that the Allied Forces defeated Hitler during World War 2 in much less time than it is taking to get this healthcare exchange fixed.

 

Here is the emails, titled: NOT HAVING TO WORRY ABOUT PAYING FOR HEALTH CARE COULD END UP KILLING ME.

 

It’s April 14, 2015 and I’m still struggling to finish my taxes. Why? Because I stopped working in September 2014.

I suppose you could call it retirement. But retirement wasn’t supposed to be so much like working.

You see, after working in IT for a long time. A good chunk of that was in health care, in both hospitals, and in the insurance side. So when 2014 hit with a ton of medical bills and retirement, I decided to itemize my health costs on my tax return. That meant I had to pull in a load of different documents from my company health savings account, the amounts I had to finance for my dentures, and about 19 different kinds of medical bills and payments. As I’m plowing through this I’m thinking, Thank God, I left COBRA in December and for 2015 only have Coventry obtained through the Healthcare.gov website.

You say so what? Well you’re going to hear the rest of the story.

I enrolled in the health coverage back in December to begin January 1. At that point, I wrote an email to the marketplace and attached a copy of my separation doc from employer saying I ended employment in September. In the email I said I believed my income would be about $70K for 2015 (a highly optimistic estimate). Using that figure the site came back with a really substantial subsidy. Still not sure how that happened, but what the heck.

In January I get a letter from the Health Insurance Marketplace saying I had not supplied sufficient documentation to justify I was earning only 70K. Actually I was unemployed until mid-February when I took a part time job because I needed to do something (retirement isn’t coming easy to me). I did the part time job for a couple of weeks but frankly, it was a lot more physical than I had originally thought. So I stopped working that and we (the wife and I) applied for early Social Security. So I used that information to send back an updated list with my pay stub from the part time job. I also indicated I thought I would be getting income as I needed from my IRA, to get me up to the 70K. This runaround eventually resulted in a long set of phone calls to the Marketplace to get my records updated – again.

I was told we were good to go.

Anyway, a week ago Friday, my wife gets notice from Social Security that her benefits would start in April for March (only the government can tell you in advance how much you are going to get for the past). Then Monday the 13th I get a call from the Social Security Admin asking why I wanted to delay getting my SS payments until April. I told the nice lady that I’d take them as soon as they could start them. While I may be dumb, I ain’t stupid.

So now I get to Tuesday. At 7PM on Tuesday I get an email from the Healthcare marketplace that I had failed to provide proper documentation on my income so I was no longer receiving the subsidy effective May 1. It was immediately followed into my in basket with an email stating that because of my recent application I could apply for benefits through June 15.

My initial reaction was HUH??? It was followed by lots of words, most of them unprintable, a few unintelligible.

I went and got a drink. Uncle Sam would have to wait until tomorrow for my taxes.

***

It’s now 3 AM on April 15, and I can’t sleep. So I get back up, finish plowing through the remainder of turbo tax and finally about 6:30 AM have them ready to e-file.

I go down, tell the wife, I think we are good to go on the taxes, but the health care was still a FUBAR.

I then make some coffee and spend a couple of minutes with my grandkids.

I decide it’s time to tackle the Health Insurance Marketplace emails. So I call the folks in London Kentucky. The support person after figuring out who I was, started looking through my files and decided that yes there was indeed a problem. She should get credit for keeping me from just starting to whimper in submission to the government.   As she worked to figure out what had happened, it dawned on her and I that the SS payments that my wife was going to get was the reason our coverage had gotten s rejected.

She basically said, this was going to happen all over again, when they received word I was going to receive social security.

I decided to let that problem wait. But I did log back into the health exchange to see that my new friend at the exchange had emailed me to say I had until June 1 to get everything fixed.

I breathed a sigh of relief.

On Thursday morning I got an email from TurboTax saying my tax return had been rejected.

I tell you that this whole thing about Obamacare cutting the cost of health care is true. I’ll be dead long before I should have been making it work.

 

Why did I want to air this publicly? I see no end of ads coming in the next election cycle about all the smooth rollout of this health insurance exchange system.

If this is smooth, I would hate to see bumpy.

 

Timothy Imholt is the author of several novels, including the newly released book THE FINAL WORLD WAR, written around the premise that Iran does get nuclear weapons and decides to use them in the fashion they have openly stated they wanted to.

As the last hours of tax day pass let me direct you to a pair of tax day piece for your approval.

First:  No Taxation without understanding

During the American Revolution, one of the major objections the colonists had was the taxation by the British crown without having any representation. While the problem of taxation without representation has been solved, it has been replaced by something almost as bad and nearly as destructive: taxation without understanding.

and there are costs for this ignorance

Being illiterate of the tax code has the same effect as actual illiteracy. It makes you dependent on others to tell you what is true and what is false. It allows you to be led. The more complicated the code the easier you are to manipulate. And that’s also why simplifying the tax code will be one of the hardest things to get done; too many people have a vested interest in keeping you in the dark.

Meanwhile with the passing of tax day 2015 we come a year closer to a tax day that Democrats dread:

the so called “Cadillac tax,” which is a 40 percent excise tax on high value health care plans. Like many parts of Obamacare, its implementation was put off to delay opposition.

It’s one of the last big parts of the Affordable Care Act to go into effect — lawmakers delayed the levy until 2018 in part because it is so controversial — but companies are wrestling with it now as they plan employee benefits. Some are already negotiating with unions over benefits that could spill into 2018.

And as my colleague here at Watchdog Arena,  Moe Lane, points out, a lot of people didn’t think it would ever see the light of day

You’ll want to check out both pieces (and Moe’s too.) not to mention the rest of the great stuff at Watchdog.org

When Moses had written down this law, he entrusted it to the levitical priests who carry the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel, giving them this order: “On the feast of Booths, at the prescribed time in the year of relaxation which comes at the end of every seven-year period, when all Israel goes to appear before the LORD, your God, in the place which he chooses, you shall read this law aloud in the presence of all Israel.

Assemble the people – men, women and children, as well as the aliens who live in your communities – that they may hear it and learn it, and so fear the LORD, your God, and carefully observe all the words of this law. Their children also, who do not know it yet, must hear it and learn it, that they too may fear the LORD, your God, as long as you live on the land which you will cross the Jordan to occupy.”

Deuteronomy 31 9-13

For a long time written law has been a significant part of human history.

The oldest (known) set of written laws known to man is the Code of Ur-Nammu from about the year 2100 BC.  A tablet containing these laws was first discovered in the mid 20th century.  Prior to that the Code of Hammurabi from several hundred years later was the oldest known recorded law in existence.

The concept of written law so that any person can understand is important.  A law written means that any person who is literate can see what the law actually says, and if a person is not literate a person can read them the law so that it can be known and understood as done by King Josiah :

The king now convened all the elders of Judah and Jerusalem.  He went up to the house of the LORD with all the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the priests, the Levites, and all the people, great and small; and he had read aloud to them the entire text of the book of the covenant that had been found in the house of the LORD.  Standing at his post, the king made a covenant before the LORD to follow the LORD and to keep his commandments, decrees, and statutes with his whole heart and soul, thus observing the terms of the covenant written in this book.

2 Chronicles 34:29-31

 

Of course the whole idea of written law being a sign of justice and right as opposed to laws being changed on a whim by an unjust ruler is based on the quite logical idea that the law means what it actually says.

And that brings us to the Supreme Court and the hearing of Obamacare King v. Burwell.

The amazing thing about this case is that what the law ACTUALLY SAYS is not in dispute.  The law explicitly says that congress authorized subsidiaries for people in obamacare exchanges “established by the states”.

However we have justices in the United States Supreme Court actually arguing against interpreting the law based on what it says:

Justice Kagen:

“We look at the whole text. We don’t look at four words,”

Justice Sotomayor:

Sotomayor wondered why the four words that so bother the challengers did not appear more prominently in the law. She said it was like hiding “a huge thing in a mousetrap.”

Justice Ginsberg:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested the four words at issue were buried and “not in the body of the legislation where you would expect to find” them.

These justices, learned legal scholars,  actually made the case in the Supreme court that the explicit words of a law passed by congress and signed by the president should be ignored because they didn’t like where their appeared, or they weren’t significant enough.

This is insanity for three reasons:

The first being that such an interpretation presumes that the lawmakers in Washington DC, many of them lawyers themselves, would not have bothered to consult any lawyers during the drafting of this law, which was argued and debated over a long period of time.  Nancy Pelosi not withstanding,  the concept that lawyers wanted to be sure that the exchanges covered Federal exchanges  did not or could not think of inserting language to explicitly say so involves a willing suspension of disbelief.

The second being that proponents of the law explicitly argued at the time of its passage that the refusal to subsidise states without exchanges was a deliberate attempt to force states to create exchanges.  News coverage discussed the predicament for republican governors saying they would be forced to implement exchanges due to pressure within their state.

Huffington Post 2012:

Democrats, meanwhile, hope to use the law and Republican inflexibility to their advantage, betting that more Americans will embrace the law once it expands coverage. The calculus for voters, Democrats assume, will become more about the policy and less about a polarizing president.

“It shouldn’t be complicated at all,” said John Anzalone, an Obama pollster who assists Democrats in federal races across the country.

and let not forget Obamacare (and Romneycare) architect Jonathan Gruber explicitly stating on multiple occasions in public forums that this was the case:

What’s important to remember politically about this is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits—but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill. So you’re essentially saying [to] your citizens you’re going to pay all the taxes to help all the other states in the country. I hope that that’s a blatant enough political reality that states will get their act together and realize there are billions of dollars at stake here in setting up these exchanges. But, you know, once again the politics can get ugly around this.

But while either of these are significant the real piece of insanity is as follows:

At least four justices of the US Supreme Court are apparently willing to rule that what a law explicitly says has no bearing on the implementation of the law itself.

Mind you they are not rejecting the wording of the law because they claim it is unconstitutional, they are rejecting the plain wording of a law for their own interpretation of it because they don’t like it.

Think just for a second what that means.

What is the point of having a written code of law if what the law says means nothing?  Why have written contracts?  Why bother?  If the plain text of a law can be thrown out not because of a constitutional issue but because an individual judge doesn’t like it then what does being “a nation of laws” mean?

And if the law doesn’t mean what it says?  Why obey it?

*************************************************

************************

Our March Premium for tip jar hitters of $50 or more is Stacy McCain’s book:  Sex Trouble: Essays on Radical Feminism and the War Against Human Nature

Subscribe at $50 or more in March and receive each monthly premium shipped the date of your payment.

 

All Tip Jar hits in March of $10 or more will get a copy of Jeff Trapani’s excellent E-Book Victor the Monster Frankenstein.

Captain Darling:  So you see, Blackadder, Field Marshal Haig is most anxious to eliminate all these German spies.
General Melchett:  Filthy Hun weasels fighting|their dirty underhand war
Captain Darling:   !And, fortunately, one of our spies
 General Melchett:  Splendid fellows, brave heroes,|risking life and limb for Blighty.

Black Adder Goes Fourth General Hospital 1989

As I recall it was a mere week ago that the left was beside itself at Judge Roy Moore daring to defy federal courts claiming:

So the chief justice, never shy about taking on a fight, even a losing one, acted. He fired off a missive to state probate judges to refuse the marriage licenses to gay couples, saying they weren’t bound to adhere to the ruling of the federal judge who declared Alabama’s gay marriage ban unconstitutional.

this has led to an ethics complaint by the liberal Southern Poverty Law Center and sites on the left have been full of accusation and outrage

The Bottom line is the left is absolutely beside itself that Moore a state judge would defy a federal ruling and have made it clear that such a stance is not to be tolerated in a law-abiding America.

Unless of course it’s a ruling they don’t like:

But perhaps more unsettling to supporters of constitutional checks and balances is the finding that 43% of Democrats believe the president should have the right to ignore the courts. Only 35% of voters in President Obama’s party disagree, compared to 81% of Republicans and 67% of voters not affiliated with either major party.

Allah Pundit comments:

Once you tell the president it’s cool to ignore court rulings if it’s “important,” you might as well pass an enabling act and hand him supreme power. Forty-three percent of Democrats, an actual plurality, didn’t flinch, though. And the irony is, Obama’s own defenses of his power grabs aren’t much more sophisticated than that. His rationale for executive amnesty is that Congress is hopelessly gridlocked, the legal limbo that illegals find themselves in is intolerable, and we’ve now reached a point of crisis (a political crisis for the White House, not a policy crisis) that simply demands executive action. It’s crucially important that he act unilaterally and that he act now, even though he can’t quite explain — again, on policy terms — why that is. Just trust him. It’s important. And Democrats do, including and especially the core Democratic constituencies of women, young adults, and minorities.

This might seem a contradiction to most of us but as this is one of the advantages of a philosophy whose primary driver is ends justifying means.

My condolences for those of you who have turned 26 years old last year.

Alas for you the years of being able to stay on your parents health insurance have ended and guess what the penalties for being uninsured have increased.

the penalty fee for not having health insurance will vary on a person’s income. For 2014, the IRS had announced the penalty is 1 percent of taxable income or $95 person, pending which cost is higher based on the 2014 federal tax return. According to HealthCare.gov, the penalty for individuals is only for those earning more than $10,000 for income. The maximum penalty is the national average premium for the bronze plan.

And if you are turning 26 this year it will be even more fun

For the 2015 tax season, the penalty will increase to 2 percent of the yearly household income or $325 per person for the year. The IRS will expect the higher cost from the consumer. For families, the penalty is $325 per person, and $162.50 per child under 18 years old, although the maximum penalty per family will be $975.

Think of all the students i the humanities or in women’s studies who have not found anything even slightly resembling a job in their specialties suddenly forced to pay a huge tax to the government.

Think of all those democrat voters who suddenly introduced to the just deserts that they voted for at ages 19 and 23

And think of all those democrat candidates running for president in 2016 who will be promising to make sure they continue to pay those taxes.

This is an incredible gift to the GOP that takes place every single year and will continue to be gifted to the party until the day the law is repealed.

One might consider it unfair to Democrats who weren’t in congress when this was passed but remember oh party of Barack Obama you did this to yourselves.

Enjoy!  I know I will.