I wrote a blog on July 13, 2008 exposing the Medicare Advantage as a scam to enrich the healthcare insurance industry. The title was “Politicians Are Hard To Trust. ”
Seniors initially think it is great because their premium is cheaper than traditional Medicare.
If seniors are not sick they would think they have great insurance because it is cheaper than traditional Medicare insurance. If those seniors would get sick they would realizes the insurance coverage is not as great as their healthcare insurer chooses the physicians and hospitals. Neither might be the “best in town.”
The healthcare insurance companies wine and dine seniors to get them to sign up with their company.
The profit the insurer receives from Medicare Advantage is estimated to be $8 billion dollars a year.
“One in five of the nation’s 43 million Medicare enrollees are now in the Medicare Advantage program, which the Bush administration says has brought more choices and better benefits to the federal health system.”
“ Medicare Advantage has become a political target, because — whatever its vaunted enhancements — it costs the federal government 12 percent more for each enrollee, on average, than the regular Medicare system.” “The Congressional critics see the policies as an extravagance whose main beneficiaries are insurers like Humana and UnitedHealth.”
Wake up America! Physicians only receive 10% of the Medicare dollar. Physicians are the people providing medical care, not the healthcare insurance companies.
None-the-less many seniors are happy with the lower Medicare Advantage premiums. They would be very unhappy if President Obama eliminated Medicare Advantage before the presidential election.
The decrease in Medicare Advantage’s availability was snuck into Obamacare without debate. Few in congress absorbed every detail of Obamacare.
The reductions were supposed to take effect on October 15,2012.
This Medicare Advantage elimination date is part of the $500 billion dollar reduction in Medicare expenditures.
“ President Obama has been planning to get rid of Medicare Advantage with his Medicare funding reductions. Seniors will then be in an uproar.”
President Obama’s plan to delay the implementation of the cut I Medicare Advantage is a trick that is costing the American Taxpayers $8 billion dollars. The cost of the additional study will not prove anything.
There is no doubt in my mind that the government as the single party payer will not work for patients or physicians.
President Obama cannot control CMS’s misuse of it assignments because bureaucratic complexity. One area of abuse and misuse of the department’s power is its attempt to eliminate fraud and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid.
There is no question that some healthcare providers abuse the Medicare and Medicaid payment system.
No one ever asks the critical question. Should the payment system used in Medicare and Medicaid be changed to prevent fraud and abuse?
This is a small amount compared to the $2.5 trillion dollar healthcare system cost when one considers the government’s investigative costs and the hardship these errors impose on many innocent physicians and patients investigated.
The hardships are enough to destroy physicians’ trust in the government and their desire to deal with the government.
Physician patient relationships are essential to the therapeutic success of a treatment regime.
Physicians have complained about this bureaucratic abuse to their congressmen. Congress has looked into this abuse. CMS’s approach has been to criminalize physicians using questionable data and decisions by unqualified judges.
Chairman Charlie Gonzalez of the House Small Business Committee outlines the problems brought to his attention several years ago. His hearings did not receive much attention.
Dr. Karen Smith a former President of the North Carolina chapter the American Association of Family Practitioners describes her encounter with CMS’s subcontractor for investigating fraud and abuse. CMS’s assignment is to discover Medicare and Medicaid underpayment or overpayment as well as fraud and abuse.
Dr. Schweitz states that administrative costs in dealing with the government is overwhelming to physician practices. The stress imposed on physicians detracts from their ability to deliver quality medical care to their patients.
Most important is the government’s attitude toward the physicians and their practices. The physicians are guilty until they prove themselves innocent. Government’s subcontractors use claims data to prove the physicians guilt
Another problem is the more the outsourced company collects from physicians, the larger the commission it collects from CMS.
Mr. Timothy B. Hill is Chief Financial Officer, Director of the Office of Financial Management, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. He answers questions from Chairman Charlie Gonzalez
Can anyone believe this testimony given by Mr. Hill? I hope his message is not believed by congress. Mr. Hill does not document his department policy changes
“ This week White House officials said a "trusted third party" would comb through data from Medicare, Medicaid and private health plans and turn questionable billing over to insurers or government investigators. That third party organization has yet to be selected.”
With the impending a thirty percent reduction in Medicare payments on January 1, 2013 physicians will not be able to afford care for Medicare and Medicaid patients.
Mr. Joseph A. Schraad, MHA Chief Executive Officer Oklahoma Allergy and Asthma Clinic, in Oklahoma City, describes the challenges that the practice he manages face. Less and less providers are going to accept Medicare.
Other formulas can be used. The You Tubes presented here demonstrate that the Judge (CMS) is using the wrong formula. The CMS cannot control their outsourced venders who have inappropriate incentives.
The are driving physician away from accepting Medicare and Medicaid payments. In the process patients lose
The way to solve fraud and abuse is to have patients police the healthcare system. Patients can uncover fraud and abuse if they own their healthcare dollar and have financial incentives to save unspent money in a retirement fund.
Education and financial incentives will make consumers productive consumers.
The way to approach physicians is not to assume they are criminals and subject them to the stress and expense to defend them in a defective evaluation system.
Physicians must be educated on how to improve coding efficiency and the government’s system of measurement must be made more accurate and less complex. ICD 10 is a big mistake. It makes coding complicated.
The best formula, in my opinion, is to empower and educate patients.
Government and employers must provide patients with financial incentives to become educated buyers of medical care services. Patients must be given the opportunity to own their healthcare dollars and be responsible for their own health and healthcare.
Over the past few years’ safety net hospitals throughout the country have gone out of business. Fifteen percent of the hospitals in the United States are publically owned safety net hospitals. These are city or county hospitals.
These hospitals receive funding from local, state, and federal government. They are also allowed to charge Medicaid, Medicare, and private insurers for the care of patients that have these forms of insurance.
Poor uninsured patients receive their care free from safety net hospitals.
Public hospitals, especially in urban areas, have a high concentration of uncompensated care. Their association with medical schools as teaching hospitals is an additional funding source provided by the federal government.
About 2,000 hospitals receive this funding. The problem is these DSH payments are highly concentrated.
Sixty-three percent of total DSH payments go to large teaching hospitals in urban areas.
DSH funding method is political and bureaucratic. Payments are manipulated. Medicaid eligibility and coverage vary widely across states and change the distribution of funds.
DSH payments have been distributed unevenly across geographic areas and away from rural safety net hospitals.
The uneven distribution is toward large urban safety net hospitals in the Middle Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Pacific regions. Those hospitals account for 60 percent of all DSH payments but only account for 46 percent of Medicare discharges.
The result is public safety net hospitals in America are closing at a much faster rate than hospitals overall.
As the number of uninsured and indigent patients has increased, their expenses in providing uncompensated care have drained the suburban and rural public hospitals funds.
Treating patients without receiving compensation has also drained urban non teaching hospitals.
Public and non-profit rural hospitals form a large part of the health care safety net for the indigent and uninsured in the U.S.
Several large safety net hospitals have gone into bankruptcy because cities and states could not afford to fund them.
Two prominent examples are Martin Luther King in Los Angeles and Grady Memorial in Atlanta. Grady Memorial in Atlanta has gone into bankruptcy twice only to be rescued the citizens of the city of Atlanta.
Non-profit community hospitals can collect federal funds if they treated a certain percentage of indigent and Medicaid patients.
In order to reach that percentage the federal government has allowed community hospitals to eliminate certain beds from its total hospital bed count. The hospitals can eliminate outpatient observation beds, skilled nursing swing beds and ancillary labor/delivery services beds from its total bed count.
It inflates the percentage of charity beds a non-profit hospital counts toward government subsidy. This is a totally political maneuver.
In effect it decreases federal funding to city and county safety net hospitals.
In October 2012, Obamacare is starting to adjust federal hospital payments based on quality of care. One of the primary metrics will be patient experience rating that covers everything from the communication skills of doctors and nurses to their promptness in responding to complaints about pain.
A new study in the Archives of Internal Medicine finds that this change may add to the financial troubles of safety net hospitals, which primarily serve poor patients. The safety net hospitals tend to get poorer marks from patients than do other hospitals.
The rest of the bonus will be determined by how hospitals adhere to basic guidelines for clinically recommended care.
The hospitals that perform best will receive a higher bonus. Those that lag in their scores will end up with less.
Many safety net hospitals do not have the funds to buy adequate information technology to record the required treatment protocols.
It means that non-profit hospitals will receive additional bonus money and safety net hospitals will be penalized.
To add insult to injury the vital safety net hospitals’ decrease in federal funds could push them “closer to bankruptcy.”
President Obama’s program will make it even worse for safety net hospitals in October 2013.
Obamacare will start reducing special payments to hospitals that treat disproportionately large numbers of indigent patients. Safety net hospitals are the hospital treating a disproportionately larger number of indigent patients.
Without this funding the safety net hospitals cannot improve quality or provide services to indigent people.
The questions to ask are,
Are the measurement used to determine quality care wrong?
Is President Obama trying to destroy the safety net hospital system on purpose?
Does he not realize that many indigent Americans depend on safety net hospitals?
What is going on here?
The opinions expressed in the blog “Repairing The Healthcare System” are, mine and mine alone.
Among the reasons for rejecting the government’s offer to be a participant were the complex, contradictory and burdensome rules, the risk in shared savings, and the need for participating patients to be included in oversight boards.
"Dr. Don Berwick and his associates have a naïve view of the ability of organizations to form and execute Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs). ACOs fit well into President Obama’s worldview of government controlling our healthcare system."
The government is broke. It does not have the money to pay for a government takeover of the healthcare system.
New systems need participant cooperation to succeed.
Creating a fully integrated healthcare system is difficult to nearly impossible unless the system has salaried physicians and a fully transparent hospital/physician provider organization. This will not happen soon in the current hospital and physician cultural milieu.
He is wrong. I predicted participation would be minimal.
Physicians take on enormous risk taking care of patients presently. The risk increases when patients do not follow physicians’ treatment recommendations.
Physicians are in no mood to take on financial responsibility and malpractice risk for actions that might fail because of patients’ non-adherence. Patients have to be motivated with health and financial incentives to comply.
Those physicians and hospital systems participating in the ACO program will lose financially and professionally.
" Obamacare uses Medicare reimbursement as an incentive to create accountable care organizations (ACOs), which the federal government has decided are the way to deliver quality care at lower cost.
Proposed regulations by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) are largely confusing, impenetrable, and inconsistent.
They give CMS detailed control over ACOs and the providers who participate in them, including censorship of ACO communications with Medicare beneficiaries.
Medicare beneficiaries are assigned to ACOs without their knowledge or consent.
Membership, in reality, is a retrospective bookkeeping entry relevant only to financial dealings between CMS and the ACO. ACOs may even have to pay money back to Medicare if they do not meet CMS goals for savings.
The incentives offered to ACOs are diffuse and speculative, entailing intrusive regulation of ACOs and providers.
ACOs as defined by Obamacare are fatally flawed and cannot be fixed by merely changing the proposed regulations."
This is neither a Democrat nor Republican issue. It is an issue of developing a healthcare system that will work. The cost of developing this government controlled healthcare system that is doomed to fail is enormous.
The Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Kiesinger Health System, and Intermountain Healthcare are probably the most integrated healthcare systems existing in America. They visualized the lack of potential for success in ACO’s present structure.
Thirty-six organizations signed up for the Pioneer Demonstrations ACO 6 months ago. The list and details can be found on the CMS fact sheet. The details of the deal they made are not easily available.
It is worth studying all of the organizations that were selected for the Pioneer ACO program. These organization must believe they are in a no lose situations. They will find out that they will lose and it will be too late to get out.
All of the organizations represent a very small percentage of practicing physicians. These physicians take care of a very small portion of Medicare patients.
It will take several years and much money to decide the ACO’s will fail. The only healthcare system that will align all the stakeholders’ incentives is my Ideal Medical Savings Account.
The opinions expressed in the blog “Repairing The Healthcare System” are, mine and mine alone.
The more than 250 million consumers who already have health insurance will see their healthcare insurance change, the cost increase, and the quality of care diminish.
How will Americans feel when they hear about a brand new cure only to find out that their government’s controlled insurance won’t cover it? The decisions to cover care will be made by a non-elected committee that sends its recommendation to another not elected committee who then sends it to a third committee to decide on whether the treatment is affordable or valid for the age of the patient.
The same survey revealed that 83% of practicing physicians are contemplating quitting the practice of medicine.
The physicians remaining in practice will see more patients per hour and have care of their patients dictated to them by the government bureaucrats. Obamacare will turn personalized patient care into commodity care.
There will be no patient physician relationship. There will be rationing of care and decreased access to care. Patient’s will not have freedom of choice for care or treatment.
Obamacare also restricts physicians’ clinical judgment. Sometimes physicians will sense a patient is really sick with a serious disease. An example is a disease called a fever of unknown origin. Many tests would have to be performed to make the diagnosis. The sooner the diagnosis is made the better the chance for patients to survive.
Physicians might fear the Independent Medicare Advisory Board would deny the workup and penalize the physician. It could be that the Independent Medicare Advisory Board members and the other committees did not factor in the difficulties in the diagnosis.
In time the diagnosis would become obvious but it might be too late to save the patients life.
We have already seen healthcare premiums soar under Obamacare. I have shown that Medicare premiums are schedule to escalate in 2014. Medicare and Medicaid is healthcare insurance.
Healthcare insurance will be less affordable not more affordable even though government subsides will be greater. The budget deficit will grow increase.
Access to care will decrease because of the increased number of patients. Physicians will have less time to spend with patients. A growing number of patients will have increased difficulty finding a physician.
There is a current physician shortage. The physician shortage will become compounded when some physicians stop practicing medicine. Other physicians will either restrict the healthcare insurance plans they accept or stop accepting healthcare insurance completely.
The delivery of healthcare is getting worse and more expensive not better and less expensive.
Obamacare is creating an escalating mess.
Patients are going to be the biggest losers on every level of interaction with the President Obama’s Healthcare Reform Act.
The opinions expressed in the blog “Repairing The Healthcare System” are, mine and mine alone
Dear Mitt You're losing the battle for POTUS over Obama, and need to take immediate action. In Texas, we ask, are you going to fish, or cut bait? So far, you're cutting bait. Time to step up to the plate and do the right thing.
For the following, I lean heavily on the July 5, 2012 WSJ Review and Outlook article. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304141204577506652734793044.html?KEYWORDS=romney%27s+tax+confusion
In my opinion, here's what you need to do. You will have my vote. If you want my financial support, you'll need to show solid prompt evidence that you 'get it' and decide to fight for the win.
Now, please go and do the right thing, or we'll see our nation go further down the tubes under a 2nd Obama administration!
Roger D. Nunn, MD, FACS
Dr. Nunn’s letter represents the thinking of many Americans. Mitt Romney has to go on the offensive with effective advice and media delivery.
President Obama has seduced a lot of people and will continue to be seductive. He seduced me once with his half-truths. These half-truths had generated hope for America that turned out to be false hope.
Some people are so disenchanted that the call his half-truths outright lies.
Americans have forgotten the increase in taxes written into President Obama’s Healthcare Reform Act. There are 20 hidden taxes in the law that effect citizens making 250,000 dollars a year or less. These taxes contradicts President Obama’s promise.
Grover Norquist wrote an excellent summary of those new taxes for the public to review. President Obama’s hypocrisy toward the American people is obvious.
These taxes and Mr. Norquist’s summary is ignored by the traditional media.
Since the recent Supreme Court decision has managed to keep Obamacare alive, it is vital that voters in all income brackets understand the new taxes imbedded in the law.
President Obama was not telling the truth when he said citizens earning under $250,000 would not pay one single dime more in taxes.
Grover Norquist is president of Americans for Tax Reform, a coalition of taxpayer groups, individuals, and businesses opposed to higher taxes at the federal, state, and local levels. The coalition organizes the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, which asks all candidates for federal and state office to commit themselves in writing to oppose all tax increases.
In my last blog “ The Supreme Court And Obamacare” I said Obamacare is the largest tax increase in American history. As things go sour for Obamacare the government is going to have to raise taxes even further.
Taxpayers earning under $250,000 will experience the burden of the $500 billion dollar increase in taxes.
Arranged by their respective effective dates, below is the total list of all $500 billion-plus in tax hikes (over the next ten years) in Obamacare, where to find them in the bill, and how much your taxes are scheduled to go up as of today:
Taxes that took effect in 2010:
1. Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals (Min$/immediate): $50,000 per hospital if they fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance," and "billing and collection" rules set by HHS. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,961-1,971.
2. Codification of the “economic substance doctrine” (Tax hike of $4.5 billion). This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 108-113.
3. “Black liquor” tax hike (Tax hike of $23.6 billion). This is a tax increase on a type of bio-fuel. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 105.
4. Tax on Innovator Drug Companies ($22.2 bil/Jan 2010): $2.3 billion annual tax on the industry imposed relative to share of sales made that year. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,971-1,980.
5. Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike ($0.4 bil/Jan 2010): The special tax deduction in current law for Blue Cross/Blue Shield companies would only be allowed if 85 percent or more of premium revenues are spent on clinical services. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,004.
6. Tax on Indoor Tanning Services ($2.7 billion/July 1, 2010): New 10 percent excise tax on Americans using indoor tanning salons. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,397-2,399.
Taxes that took effect in 2011:
7. Medicine Cabinet Tax ($5 bil/Jan 2011): Americans no longer able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957-1,959.
8. HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike ($1.4 bil/Jan 2011): Increases additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,959.
Taxes that took effect in 2012:
9. Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (Min$/Jan 2012): Preamble to taxing health benefits on individual tax returns. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,957.
Taxes that take effect in 2013:
10. Surtax on Investment Income ($123 billion/Jan. 2013): Creation of a new, 3.8 percent surtax on investment income earned in households making at least $250,000 ($200,000 single). This would result in the following top tax rates on investment income: Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 87-93.
*Other unearned income includes (for surtax purposes) gross income from interest, annuities, royalties, net rents, and passive income in partnerships and Subchapter-S corporations. It does not include municipal bond interest or life insurance proceeds, since those do not add to gross income. It does not include active trade or business income, fair market value sales of ownership in pass-through entities, or distributions from retirement plans. The 3.8% surtax does not apply to non-resident aliens.
11. Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax ($86.8 bil/Jan 2013): Current law and changes:
First $200,000 ($250,000 Married) Employer/Employee
12. Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers ($20 bil/Jan 2013): Medical device manufacturers employ 360,000 people in 6000 plants across the country. This law imposes a new 2.3% excise tax. Exempts items retailing for <$100. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,980-1,986
13. Raise "Haircut" for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI($15.2 bil/Jan 2013): Currently, those facing high medical expenses are allowed a deduction for medical expenses to the extent that those expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income (AGI). The new provision imposes a threshold of 10 percent of AGI. Waived for 65+ taxpayers in 2013-2016 only. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994-1,995
14. Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax” ($13 bil/Jan 2013): Imposes cap on FSAs of $2500 (now unlimited). Indexed to inflation after 2013. There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education. Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington, D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can be used to pay for this type of special needs education. Bill: PPACA; Page: 2,388-2,389
15. Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D ($4.5 bil/Jan 2013) Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,994
16. $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives ($0.6 bil/Jan 2013). Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,995-2,000
Taxes that take effect in 2014:
17. Individual Mandate Excise Tax (Jan 2014): Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income surtax according to the higher of the following
Exemptions for religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes, and hardship cases (determined by HHS).Bill: PPACA; Page: 317-337
18. Employer Mandate Tax (Jan 2014): If an employer does not offer health coverage, and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit, the employer must pay an additional non-deductible tax of $2000 for all full-time employees. Applies to all employers with 50 or more employees. If any employee actually receives coverage through the exchange, the penalty on the employer for that employee rises to $3000. If the employer requires a waiting period to enroll in coverage of 30-60 days, there is a $400 tax per employee ($600 if the period is 60 days or longer).Bill: PPACA; Page: 345-346
Combined score of individual and employer mandate tax penalty: $65 billion/10 years
19. Tax on Health Insurers ($60.1 bil/Jan 2014): Annual tax on the industry imposed relative to health insurance premiums collected that year. Phases in gradually until 2018. Fully-imposed on firms with $50 million in profits. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,986-1,993
Taxes that take effect in 2018:
20. Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans ($32 bil/Jan 2018): Starting in 2018, new 40 percent excise tax on “Cadillac” health insurance plans ($10,200 single/$27,500 family). Higher threshold ($11,500 single/$29,450 family) for early retirees and high-risk professions. CPI +1 percentage point indexed. Bill: PPACA; Page: 1,941-1,956
Mr. Norquist left out the worse tax of all. This “tax” is under everyone’s radar. It has never been mentioned in the traditional mainstream media. It is the tax on Seniors who are on Medicare.
All seniors are means tested. This means the greater your income from any source including work income, pension income, capital gains and interest or dividend income the higher the baseline premiums become.
This “tax” had been decided by a Democratic controlled congress that had not read the bill or understood all of its consequences.
These are provisions incorporated in the Obamacare legislation, purposely
delayed so as not to anger seniors during President Obama’s 2012 Re-Election Campaign.
Please send this blog to all the seniors you know and their children. It is important for them to know that President Obama is throwing seniors under the bus. Obamacare must be repealed.
Everyone must stay focused. President Obama is going to try to change the conversation.
Some of these taxes have already gone into effect. If the Republicans win the House and the Senate as well as the Presidency, Obamacare must be repealed.
Everyone interested in America’s economic future must tell a friend. President Obama has deceived Americans.
It is time for everyone to get angry and vote him out of office in November.
The opinions expressed in the blog “Repairing The Healthcare System” are, mine and mine alone
When it was written in 1787, the Constitution had a preamble and seven main parts, called articles.
The Preamble says:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The Preamble is not a law. It gives the reasons for writing the Constitution. The Preamble is one of the best known parts of the Constitution. The first three words, "We the people," are used very often. The six intentions that are listed are the goals of the constitution.
The House of Representatives has members elected by the people in each state. The number of members from each state depends on how many people live there. Each member of the House of Representatives is elected for two years. The Senate has two members, called Senators, for each state, no matter how many people live there. Each Senator is elected for six years. The original Constitution says that Senators should be elected by the state legislatures, but this was changed later by the seventeenth amendment.
Article One also says how the Congress will do its business and what kinds of laws it can make. It lists some kinds of laws the Congress and the states cannot make. Article One also makes rules for Congress to impeach and remove from office the President, Vice President, judges, and other government officers.
Article Two says that the President (the executive branch) will carry out the laws made by Congress. This article says how the President and Vice President are elected, and who can be elected to these offices. The President and Vice President are elected by a special Electoral College chosen by the states, for four years. The Vice President takes over as President if the President dies, or resigns, or is unable to serve. Article Two also says that the President is in charge of the army and navy. He can make treaties with other countries, but these must be approved by two-thirds of the Senate. He appoints judges, ambassadors, and other officers, but the Senate also must approve these appointments. The President can also veto bills. However, Congress can override the veto.
Article Three says there will be a court system (the judicial branch), including the Supreme Court. The article says that Congress can decide which courts, besides the Supreme Court, are needed. It says what kinds of "cases and controversies" these courts can decide. Article Three also requires trial by jury in all criminal cases, and defines the crime of treason.
States' powers and limits
Article Four is about the states. It says that all states must give "full faith and credit" to the laws of the other states. It also says that state governments must treat citizens of other states as fairly as they treat their own citizens, and must send arrested people back to another state if they have been charged with a crime.
Article Four also says that Congress can make new states. There were only 13 states in 1787. Now there are 50 United States. It says Congress can make rules for Federal property and can govern territories that have not yet been made into states. Article Four says the United States must make sure that each state has a republican form of government, and protect the states from invasion and violence.
Process of amendment
Article Five says how to amend, or change, the Constitution. Congress can write a change, if two-thirds of the members in each House agree. The state governments can call a convention to write changes, although this has not happened since 1787. Any change that is written by Congress or by a convention must be sent to the state legislatures or to state conventions for their approval. Congress decides whether to send a change to the legislatures or to conventions. Three-fourths of the states must approve a change for it to become part of the Constitution.
An amendment can change any part of the Constitution, except one — no amendment can change the rule that each state has equal suffrage (right to vote) in the Senate.
Article Six says that the Constitution, and the laws and treaties of the United States, are higher than any other laws. It also says that all federal and state officers must swear to "support" the Constitution.
Article Seven says that the new government under the Constitution would not start until conventions in at least nine states approved the Constitution.
Since 1787, Congress has written 33 amendments to change the Constitution, but the states have ratified only 27 of them.
The first ten amendments are called the Bill of Rights. They were made in 1791. All of these changes limited the power of the federal government. They were:
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." – People have the right to have weapons, for example guns.
The government cannot put a person on trial for a seriouscrime until a grand jury has written an indictment. That a person cannot be put on trial twice for the same crime. The government must follow due process of law before punishing a person or taking their property. A person on trial for a crime does not have to testify against himself in court.
Any person who is accused of a crime should get a speedy trial by a jury. That person can have a lawyer during the trial. They must be told what they are charged with. The person can question the witnesses against them, and can get their own witnesses to testify.
The pundits on the left and the right have been speculating on the significance of the decision for the past five days. It can make anyone who is trying to understand the significance of the decision, as I have, dizzy.
Recently, the CBO said is would increase the budget deficit $1.76 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. President Obama has claimed Obamacare will decrease the deficit.
Obamacare is going to be difficult to execute because of programs such as Accountable Care Organizations. Deadlines have already been extended. This will result in increased cost and increased budget deficits.
States do not want to increase their spending, raise taxes, or go into further debt States are required to balance their budgets. Most will not cooperate with the expansion of Medicaid or the Heath Insurance Exchanges.
The role of the executive branch of the government has already been expanded on President Obama’s watch. Non-elected officials are making policy decisions without congressional approval.
The end result will be that the healthcare system will collapse. The federal government will then socialize medicine completely.
I believe this is President Obama’s goal. It is the reason he did not insist on the Public Option before passage of the bill.
President Obama has used many trick plays to achieve his goal. The last trick he played was to try to intimidate the Supreme Court.
The effect would be to limit broad application of the commerce clause. In the past the federal government has used the commerce clause to justify its intrusion in Americans’ personal life and limit their freedom of choice.
Nancy Pelosi was grinning from ear to ear and made a couple of incomprehensible comments about President Obama, Harry Reid and her victory in the Supreme Courts decision. She even had a party before congressional members.
We can all remember Nancy Pelosi gloating and saying, "we cut half a trillion dollars from Medicare” to pay for ObamaCare.
Sixty percent of Americans do not like Obamacare. They want it repealed.
If the commerce clause was upheld the federal government could force Americans to buy and eat broccoli.
The error the Chief Justice made is that by declaring it a tax the government can tax people who choose not to eat broccoli.
“However, with Chief Justice Roberts almost surreptitiously joining with Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Kennedy in ruling that ObamaCare is barred by the federal Commerce Clause, a new era has begun in Commerce Clause jurisprudence.”
This is a big deal. It limits the federal government’s power over its citizens by resetting the rules for lower courts.
Long after many of us are gone, this 5-4 opinion finally setting limits on the reach of the Commerce Clause will continue to affect American lives and protect private citizens from Washington's intrusions.
In order to pass Obamacare with 60 votes needed in the Senate, President Obama threatened some Democratic senators into voting for his bill.
President Obama jammed an unpopular healthcare reform act through a barely willing Democratic dominated congress.
President Obama insisted on the mandate. He claimed it was constitutional according to the commerce clause.
President Obama did not want to impose a tax at a time the economy was so poor. A tax on families earning less than $250,000 a year would have been political suicide.
President Obama would not have gotten 60 Democratic votes in the Senate if he was imposing a tax on those corporations, organizations, and individual who chose not buy healthcare insurance.
The Healthcare Reform Act was passed without bipartisan support. Therefore, President Obama cannot claim that the bill was passed by a bipartisan congress.
“Chief Justice Roberts majority decision said the Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance . . ..
His error was to give the President some help by calling it a tax.
The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance." (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, Slip op. at 3, 41-42, 44)”
President Obama has insisted it is not a tax but a mandate. Today he is insisting it a not a tax. It is a penalty for not buying insurance. The legal definitions of taxes, penalties and mandates are all different.
No one can know if John Roberts was intimidated by President Obama’s admonition or if he thought he was acting to defend the constitution.
In effect, he and the liberal justices rewrote Obamacare as it was originally written.
Democratic congresspersons are starting to catch on. Many are declining to attend the Democratic Party’s convention.
“The ObamaCare tax does not apply to those who presently are untaxed, (50% of the public).
It will not apply to the more wealthy, who will be excused because they carry health insurance anyway.
Guess who absorbs the bullet? Families earning under $250,000 a year.
The President who promised no new taxes against the middle class conclusively has been "outed" by the Chief Justice as having imposed the biggest tax on middle-class Americans in a generation.
President Obama has “outed” his supporters with false hope throughout his presidency using trick plays. Seniors will be unhappy when they start realizing the impact of the $500 billion dollars removed from Medicare.
Employers will be hesitant to employ greater than 50 employees in order to avoid the tax. Unemployment will rise. Obamacare in offering money for unfunded liabilities as more people will need subsided insurance.
This represents the largest tax increase in United States history along with 20 other new taxes in Obamacare. These new taxes are going to affect everyone including taxpayers’ earning under $250,000 a year.
President Obama knew all along Obamacare’s mandate is not constitutional. He was trying to pull a trick play. He knew Americans would not buy an added tax.
He then faked out the Supreme Court when his lawyer asked if Obamacare would stand as constitutional if the mandate would be considered a tax.
“The idea that if Congress had mustered the courage to pass the mandate as the tax it is, it would have been well within its right to tax the people. But Congress didn't do that. They manipulated the language, and thereby the people, playing us for fools.”
The economy remains the major issue in the 2012 elections. President Obama will use every trick he can to divert America’s attention from the main issue. Obamacare is making the economy worse.
“The number-one national issue in the 2012 presidential election is economic, but as a cultural question, the scope, limits, and trustworthiness of government looms large and ominous to those who perpetrated the fraud of duplicity:
Disguising a wolfish tax in the sheep's clothing of moral imperative, just long enough to pass it. It's at least as unwise to scam voters, as it is not nice to fool Mother Nature.
Some believe that Chief Justice Roberts has given Republicans the ability to tie the healthcare issue back to the economy.
Chief Justice Roberts returned Obamacare front-and-center back into the November elections debate. Defining it for what it really is — a new, enormous federal tax on at least four million Americans (Slip op. at 37)
It will be up to Mitt Romney and the Republicans to define the connection of the two issues.
I have a feeling President Obama will outsmart the Republicans once again with additional trick plays.
John Roberts did not do Conservatives, Libertarians, the constitution, the economy or the American people a favor with his decision.
It is up to the people to speak at the voting booth on November 6nd.