Showing posts with label law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label law. Show all posts

Monday, June 2, 2014

Jonathan Turley: Let’s face it, this Bergdahl prisoner swap is illegal

JonathanTurley:Let’sfaceit,thisBergdahlprisoner

Jonathan Turley: Let’s face it, this Bergdahl prisoner swap is illegal

posted at 4:41 pm on June 2, 2014 by Allahpundit

Via RCP, you already know why it’s illegal but stay tuned anyway for two excellent points that have been overlooked. One: There’s no reason why the White House couldn’t have complied with the statute and notified Congress months or even years ago of its intent to do a deal for Bergdahl involving the Taliban Five if/when the opportunity ever presented itself. The reason they kept mum and did this on the sly, without notifying anyone first, isn’t because they had to “move quickly” or whatever, it’s because they knew that advance notice to Congress would give hawks on both sides of the aisle time to build political pressure against the swap. Obama wants to empty Gitmo and make nice with the Taliban before we abandon Afghanistan to its fate, and complying with the law was an impediment to that. So he broke it. Par for the course, as Turley knows only too well. Two: It’s true that when O signed the “30-day notification” rule into law, he issued a signing statement saying that he regarded that requirement as a violation of separation of powers. When he first ran for president in 2008, though, he and his team used Bush’s habit of issuing signing statements as a paradigm example of executive power run amok. Watch the second clip below, where this guy actually has the balls to say he would never do something like that because he’s taught constitutional law and knows how the Constitution works. That’s the second campaign promise in as many weeks that he’s utterly betrayed.

And, by the way, if you take the Taliban at their word, this little Hopenchange gambit to build goodwill as a preface to broader peace talks is doomed to fail.

Within hours, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid shot down Hagel’s optimism for reconciliation.

“It won’t help the peace process in any way, because we don’t believe in the peace process,” Mujahid said.

Instead of portraying the exchange as the beginning of reconciliation, Taliban emir Mullah Mohammed Omar called the release of the five commanders a “great victory” and a “huge and vivid triumph.” The Taliban also published photos of the five released commanders as they arrived in Qatar.

“This huge accomplishment brings the glad tidings of liberation of the whole country and reassures us that our aspirations are on the verge of fulfillment,” Omar said, according to a statement released yesterday at the Taliban website, Voice of Jihad.

Old theory: Obama did this to bring the Taliban to the bargaining table. New theory: Obama did this to get the VA scandal off the front page. Think it’ll work? And even if it does, which scandal hurts him more?

Update: Well, well. Look what Jeryl Bier found in the White House archives: “[J]ust under a year ago, in June 2013, White House press secretary Jay Carney was unequivocal in his response to a reporter’s questions about this very deal, saying, ‘[W]e would not make any decisions about transfer of any detainees without consulting with Congress and without doing so in accordance with U.S. law.’”



Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Sunday, June 1, 2014

EPA diving into uncharted legal waters with new regulations for existing power plants

EPAdivingintounchartedlegalwaterswithnew

EPA diving into uncharted legal waters with new regulations for existing power plants

posted at 2:01 pm on June 1, 2014 by Erika Johnsen

Leave it to the Obama Environmental Protection Agency to plumb the heretofore untested depths of regulatory legerdemain to justify their environmentalist central planning.

The Obama administration’s forthcoming regulations on existing power plants — i.e., the main course of their proffered climate-change menu, set for release this week — were always going to spark a whole host of legal challenges no matter what provisions they used for their justification. The negative economic impact the new rules will have on a bunch of states and industries is certainly going to make it worth their while, and part of the EPA’s task in devising the rules was to find the best way possible to protect them from these challenges.

Evidently, they think they’ve found it. Via the WSJ:

The expected legal battle over the Obama administration’s coming limits on carbon emissions from existing power plants could provide a rarity for environmental litigation: a case for which there is scant court precedent.

The Environmental Protection Agency is turning to a little-used provision of the Clean Air Act for its new rules, because carbon dioxide isn’t regulated under major Clean Air Act programs that address air pollutants. The EPA says it has only used the section, called 111(d), to regulate five sources of pollutants since the provision was enacted in 1970—and none on the scale of CO2, a major greenhouse gas.

Because the provision has been invoked so rarely, courts have had little opportunity to weigh in on it, creating the unusual circumstance in which potential challengers to the carbon rules would be litigating largely on a blank slate against the EPA. The Clean Air Act provision gives the agency authority to regulate pollutants emitted by facilities already in operation, but the expected lawsuits from states and industry could test how far a president can go in using the long-standing air-pollution law to try to address climate change.

Unfortunately, the EPA has been on something of a legal winning streak lately, and the eco-radical lobby is in a tizzy of excitement over these latest and greatest regulations. The Obama administration has been in preemptive defense mode, and we can all look forward to a whole lot more of this over the coming days:


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Sunday, April 6, 2014

The over-federalization of criminal law in America

Theover-federalizationofcriminallawinAmerica

The over-federalization of criminal law in America

posted at 3:31 pm on April 6, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

One popular topic among conservatives – and a frequent bone of contention when debating liberals on the subject – is the issue of states’ rights vs the federal government. We tend to hone in on specific cases as they crop up in a sort of whack-a-mole fashion, but Rodrigo Sermeño has an excellent essay this weekend at PJ Media on the larger, overarching reality of this problem. There are simply too many federal laws on the books, with an average of more than fifty new ones being added each year, and most of them usurp legal issues already being handled by the states. This, as the author notes, leads to a variety of problems which are already metastasizing and coming back to bite us.

Criminal law experts warned a House panel late last week about the dangers of over-federalization in the nation’s criminal law system.

The House Judiciary Committee’s Over-Criminalization Task Force held its second hearing of 2014, where members of Congress discussed the federal criminal code’s astonishing rate of growth.

Today, there are more than 4,500 crimes in federal statutes, according to a study by Louisiana State University law professor John S. Baker…

“Today there’s a continuing crisis in the overlap of federal and state law, particularly in the areas previously covered only by state law,” James Strazzella, professor of law at Temple University, told the panel. “With the growth of federal law demonstratively covering more and more traditionally state-crime areas, a mounting and duplicating patchwork of crimes has grown up in the last few decades.”

The author notes that this is a non-partisan issue which draws criticism from both sides of the aisle for multiple reasons. This federal overreach undermines the competitive and unique nature of state sovereignty, defies the idea of a federal government with well defined and limited powers, and removes the ability of individual states to set sentencing which comports with the views of their citizens.

This sort of legislative sprawl in Washington also raises complicated issues involving a legal principle known as mens rea, which essentially means that citizens wind up facing felony charges involving laws which they didn’t even know existed and certainly held no intent to violate. This particular wrinkle was pointed out last year in a piece at the Wall Street Journal telling the story of one family who ran afoul of Uncle Sam in the most inexplicable of ways.

Eddie Leroy Anderson of Craigmont, Idaho, is a retired logger, a former science teacher and now a federal criminal thanks to his arrowhead-collecting hobby.

In 2009, Mr. Anderson loaned his son some tools to dig for arrowheads near a favorite campground of theirs. Unfortunately, they were on federal land. Authorities “notified me to get a lawyer and a damn good one,” Mr. Anderson recalls.

There is no evidence the Andersons intended to break the law, or even knew the law existed, according to court records and interviews. But the law, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, doesn’t require criminal intent and makes it a felony punishable by up to two years in prison to attempt to take artifacts off federal land without a permit.

As if this weren’t enough, expansion of the boundaries of federal law can lead to what should, by any rationale analysis, be examples of double jeopardy. One case in point which currently holds the potential for this is the status of George Zimmerman. Having been found not guilty in Florida on murder charges, there is still discussion of taking him to federal court for the same crime. And that, as was pointed out at Forbes by numerous legal experts, is not a good thing.

Thus Florida can’t charge Zimmerman again, but, presumably, if there is an appropriate statute, the federal government could charge him, since it never charged Zimmerman to begin with.

But does this make sense?

To many legal scholars this precedent is wrongly decided and it’s a matter of current legal controversy. I asked Georgetown Law Professor Randy Barnett for his perspective. Barnett was the architect of the Commerce Clause arguments against Obamacare and was once a former state-court criminal prosecutor in Chicago.

The original meaning of the double-jeopardy bar in the Fifth Amendment must be evaluated in context. At the Founding there was thought to be little, if any, overlap between federal and state laws governing individuals. In light of the modern expansion of federal power, ‘twice put in jeopardy of life or limb’ should be interpreted to mean what it says.

There is a place for federal laws, obviously, but it should center on areas where the states are unable to pursue crime, most commonly from a lack of either resources or jurisdiction. When kidnappers take a victim across state lines, or complicated fraud and fiscal mismanagement schemes involve banks and individuals across the country, there is a clear case for federal jurisdiction. But in the vast majority of instances of private misconduct, the states tend to agree on what is legal and what is not. (And to the great chagrin of some progressives, the list boils down to the Ten Commandments.) What varies is how – and to what extent – each state chooses to punish the offenders. And this is something which should rightly be left to the voters of each state depending on their preferences and needs. Reigning in Washington after they get hold of some power, however, usually proves to be an impossible task.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Thursday, February 27, 2014

Quotes of the day

Quotesoftheday postedat10:01

Quotes of the day

posted at 10:01 pm on February 26, 2014 by Allahpundit

“We said this is exactly what is going to happen,” said Sen. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix. “You have a bill here that’s so toxic it’s going to divide this Legislature. It’s going to be polarizing the entire state. And that’s exactly what happened.”…

The Senate sponsor, Sen. Steve Yarbrough, R-Chandler, defended the proposal and said his efforts were intended to extend the state’s religious freedom law’s reach to corporations and allow those sued for discrimination to cite the law even when the government isn’t a party. He said a veto would be disappointing.

“I don’t think it’s a good thing for the state in the sense that I believe the First Amendment means what is says about the free exercise of religion. It’s the first freedom in the First Amendment. It’s there for a reason,” Yarbrough said Tuesday. “And I think we need to take steps to implement that in a meaningful fashion.”…

Meanwhile, the bill has brought increasing talk of economic damage to the state, and on Wednesday, the Hispanic National Bar Association said it was cancelling its 2015 convention in Phoenix because of the proposal, becoming one of the first groups to pull an event from that state.

***

Even as momentum continues to build against Arizona’s controversial bill that would allow businesses to deny service to gay couples on religious grounds, the NFL on Wednesday morning began investigating the necessary steps to move next season’s Super Bowl from the Phoenix area, if the proposal becomes law, a source close to the situation confirmed.

The Tampa Bay area finished as the runner-up and was the only other finalist in the bidding for Super Bowl XLIX, which was awarded to Arizona in October 2011, and would in all likelihood be the NFL’s first option for relocating the game at this relatively late date. Next season’s Super Bowl is scheduled to be played at University of Phoenix Stadium in suburban Glendale, Ariz., but the religious rights measure known as Senate Bill 1062 might jeopardize the area’s host duties…

“No one wants to do this, but if the league’s hand is forced, it would have to begin preparing for that process,” the source close to the situation said. “If this doesn’t get vetoed, it has to know, what has to be done next? That discussion has begun.

***

What if an Army sergeant in full regalia is driving through a small town and his car breaks down and it’s too late to find a mechanic? There are two hotels in the town; both are owned by pacifist Christians. Do the backers of this bill really believe it should be legal for him to be refused a room and forced to sleep in his car?

Or: A couple, white male and black female, enter a florist to order arrangements for their wedding. The owner — a Bob Jones University graduate circa 1985, when the college still officially banned interracial dating — feels that he cannot contribute to something he believes is morally wrong (mixed-race marriage) on biblical grounds. Should he be allowed to refuse service even if it violates a federal anti-discrimination statute?…

What if a town dominated by Mainline Protestants decides they don’t want to serve evangelical Christians because they don’t want to be seen as affirming people who they think are distorting the teachings of the Bible and dishonoring God? An evangelical pastor and his family show up at a hotel and are turned away. How is this right?

In a religiously pluralistic society, the possibilities for discrimination based on sincerely held religious beliefs are endless. Pray that Gov. Brewer vetoes this abomination of a bill.

***

SB 1062 does nothing more than align state law with the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (which passed the House unanimously, the Senate 97-3, and was signed by President Clinton in 1993). That is, no government action can “substantially burden” religious exercise unless the government uses “the least restrictive means” to further a “compelling interest.” This doesn’t mean that people can “do whatever they want” – laws against murder would still trump religious human sacrifice – but it would prevent the government from forcing people to violate their religion if that can at all be avoided. Moreover, there’s no mention of sexual orientation (or any other class or category).

The prototypical scenario that SB 1062 is meant to prevent is the case of the New Mexico wedding photographer who was fined for declining to work a same-sex commitment ceremony. This photographer doesn’t refuse to provide services to gay clients, but felt that she couldn’t participate in the celebration of a gay wedding. There’s also the Oregon bakery that closed rather than having to provide wedding cakes for same-sex ceremonies. Why should these people be forced to engage in activity that violates their religious beliefs?

For that matter, gay photographers and bakers shouldn’t be forced to work religious celebrations, Jews shouldn’t be forced to work Nazi rallies, and environmentalists shouldn’t be forced to work job fairs in logging communities. This isn’t the Jim Crow South; there are plenty of wedding photographers – over 100 in Albuquerque – and bakeries who would be willing to do business regardless of sexual orientation, and no state is enforcing segregation laws. I bet plenty of Arizona businesses would and do see more customers if they advertised that they welcomed the LGBT community.

***

There is a note of Nikita in this battle, a sense that people on both sides would like to just come out and say “we will bury you”, and it’s really beginning to trouble me, because it is letting hate overrule simple humanity.

I saw it in my email, last night, when a guy who seemed to be Yosemite Sam Incarnate all but called me a “religious nut-job varmint” and challenged me to a duel…

I saw it again — much more dramatically and appallingly — in a social media thread, where a Catholic, running on the cheap fuel of emotionalism and revved up with righteousness, was willing to be publicly cruel to a very kind homosexual man…

I feel like I’m watching my gay friends get mauled and then watching my Catholic friends get mauled, both by people who have lost the ability to do anything but feel and seethe.

***

***

Via the Blaze.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Monday, February 10, 2014

Here we go: White House delays ObamaCare employer mandate for some small businesses until 2016

Herewego:WhiteHousedelaysObamaCareemployer

Here we go: White House delays ObamaCare employer mandate for some small businesses until 2016

posted at 4:41 pm on February 10, 2014 by Allahpundit

The perfect complement to this morning’s post on immigration. The employer mandate was already delayed last year, of course, in order to spare Democrats some extra pain during O-Care’s extremely painful rollout. That wasn’t related to an imminent election, though; this new delay is. Obama unilaterally amnestized DREAMers two years ago for no better reason than that it helped his side in the 2012 election. Now he’s going to amnestize small businesses from his signature boondoggle for the same reason, to cover his team’s asses this fall.

According to the statute passed by Congress and signed by the president, businesses with 50 or more full-time employees are required by law to provide them with health insurance as of January 1, 2014. But the law doesn’t matter:

Employers with fewer than 100 workers won’t have to provide health insurance until 2016 under Obamacare, as the administration said it would again delay a key requirement of the health law.

Larger firms have to cover at least 70 percent of the workforce starting next year, the Internal Revenue Service said in a rule issued today.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act envisioned as a cornerstone of its expansion of U.S. insurance coverage that employers with 50 or more workers would be required to provide health benefits to their employees. Under pressure from business groups, the Obama administration has weakened that requirement since July, first by delaying enforcement of the mandate until 2015. Many firms will have even more time under the regulation issued today…

The rule provides employers far more flexibility than allowed by the language of the health law, which levies fines of as much as $3,000 per worker against firms that don’t comply with the requirement.

Three points. One: It’ll be a stump-speech staple for every Republican running in 2016 that he intends to delay ObamaCare indefinitely, root and branch, if elected. Obama’s now set the precedent that he can suspend parts of the law simply because he finds them politically inconvenient. That precedent will be built upon. Two: The GOP might sue to force him to enforce the mandate, although the politics of that are tricky. No one likes the mandate, especially Republicans’ benefactors in the business lobby. Successfully suing O over this, even if it’s for the noble constitutional purpose of compelling the president to faithfully execute the law, would mean making ObamaCare even more onerous than it is. Good for rolling back executive overreach, not so good for the economy.

Three: This should be it for immigration reform. If Obama’s answer to Boehner’s “we don’t trust you” charge is to double down on one of his most egregious executive power grabs, there’s no way Republicans will trust him on border security now. And of course O knows it, which makes me think he’s already decided to compound this illegal action with some sort of unilateral mass amnesty by executive order later this year or next. There’s no going back.

Exit question via Karl: “Unexpected”?


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Monday, November 18, 2013

Rasmussen: 58% now view ObamaCare unfavorably, a new high

Rasmussen:58%nowviewObamaCareunfavorably,anew

Rasmussen: 58% now view ObamaCare unfavorably, a new high

posted at 1:11 pm on November 18, 2013 by Allahpundit

That’s the highest number from any poll tracked by RCP on this subject, but if it’s an outlier, it’s a small one. Both Quinnipiac and Gallup have found 55 percent disapproval in the last few weeks, which placed the law 15-16 points underwater. Rasmussen has it fully 20 points net negative. Either it’s a slight outlier or, ominously for the White House, it’s just a bit ahead of the curve in detecting a further downturn after last week’s chaos.

At 38/58, support has dropped seven points and opposition has risen five points in a month. How low can we go?

Eleven percent (11%) of voters say they have been helped by the health care law, but nearly three times as many (30%) say they have been hurt by it. Fifty-four percent (54%) have felt no impact. The number who say they have been helped is down from 15% in October and is the lowest finding this year…

Sixty-six percent (66%) of Democrats continue to view the health care law favorably, although that’s down from 73% a month ago. Ninety percent (90%) of Republicans and 60% of voters not affiliated with either major party have an unfavorable opinion of the law.

Seventeen percent (17%) of voters in the president’s party say they have been helped by the law, compared to three percent (3%) of Republicans and 10% of unaffiliated voters. Forty-three percent (43%) of GOP voters and 32% of unaffiliateds say they have been hurt by the law, but just 18% of Democrats say the same. Democrats are also less likely to say they have had to change their health insurance.

My favorite stat: “Ninety-five percent (95%) of the Political Class have a favorable opinion of the health care law.” The boldfaced split is interesting too, although it’s too early to draw firm conclusions from it. On the one hand, it seems significant that Democrats are evenly divided on whether the law helps or hurts them when the party is otherwise in circle-the-wagons-mode to protect the White House. I would have expected that number to be net positive, just as Democratic views of the law are. On the other hand, if young adults (who skew left) end up enrolling en masse and like their coverage, that’ll move the needle on Democratic support. And what if they don’t like it, and/or feel that they’re being gouged on their premiums? Hoo boy.

Josh Kraushaar of National Journal says the end may come sooner than you think. Is a veto-proof majority in both houses of Congress possible before 2016?

Democrats are in better shape on the Senate side, but not by as much as conventional wisdom suggests. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will do everything in his influence to protect the president — and block embarrassing legislation from being voted on — but not if it means he’ll be losing his majority gavel next year. There are 21 Democratic held-seats up in 2014, with 17 Democratic senators running for re-election. Of those 17, 10 are running in states where Obama won less than 55 percent of the vote, approximately the baseline of where House Democrats began splitting with the president on the Upton vote. Excluding Reid, an additional 15 Democrats aren’t up in 2014, but represent battleground (< 55% Obama) states where support of the law could become a long-term burden. And then there's California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who has emerged as a surprising blue-state critic of the law, retiring Montana Sen. Max Baucus, who famously predicted the implementation was shaping up to be a "train wreck," and retiring moderate South Dakota Sen. Tim Johnson.

To overcome a veto, Republicans would need 22 of those 28 winnable votes. Right now, they wouldn't come close. But Reid and the White House may end up relying on swing-state Democrats like Claire McCaskill and Bob Casey to protect the law. If the political mood doesn't improve in short order, will they want to be in that position? And if Republicans retake the Senate in 2015, the political momentum for repeal would only grow.

My gut says he’s kidding himself, but so many landmines lie ahead for O-Care that there’s no way to dismiss the possibility out of hand. We may be weeks away from O announcing a delay in the mandate or an extension of the enrollment period; rate shock, part two, will strike in January, as will access shock; young healthies who refused to enroll will start grumbling about the mandate penalty in April; then tremors from within the industry about adverse selection and higher premiums for 2015 will begin shaking newsrooms; and the shadow of small businesses canceling employer-provided coverage will loom over all of it. The GOP got to 261 votes for Fred Upton’s “Keep Your Plan Act” last week, but if Democrats get wiped out next November, it’s not difficult to foresee 290 — a veto-proof two-thirds majority in the House — for some sort of O-Care rollback measure in early 2015. The Senate will be much harder: Not only would you need a GOP landslide next fall, you’d need even Obama loyalists like Reid and McCaskill, who voted to enact O-Care in the first place, to come around on repeal/rollback over the president’s fierce opposition. If things ever did reach a point of such tremendous crisis that 67 votes, at least 10 of which realistically would be Democratic, are in play for repeal, the White House itself would offer some sort of “fix”/rollback that Dems could support for political cover. You’d need a Tunguska-fireball level of disaster for O to ever acquiesce in undoing the law to protect Dems. Highly unlikely — but, given what we’ve seen in the past month, not impossible.

Exit question via David Frum: Republicans wouldn’t actually repeal the Medicaid expansion, would they?


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Quotes of the day

Quotesoftheday postedat10:01

Quotes of the day

posted at 10:01 pm on October 14, 2013 by Allahpundit

So two weeks in, here’s where we’re at: Many and perhaps most users can’t even get into the federal exchange system. Those who can are often stymied by errors, and can’t trust that any subsidized insurance prices they see will be accurate. And then, even if they do manage to get all the way through the system, their applications may not transmit properly to the insurers from whom they are trying to purchase insurance. In short, nothing works. It’s a failure at every level

In order for coverage to start on January 1, individuals will have to complete applications by December 15. And in order to avoid the law’s penalty for remaining uninsured, they’ll have to be enrolled by February 15 of next year—not the end of March.

In other words, the administration doesn’t really have six months to fix problems with the exchanges. Political pressure will build well before the end of March. If there isn’t significant progress in a fairly short period of time, I suspect we’ll start to see a lot more supporters begin to question the law, or at least start to wonder aloud about what to do with a health care overhaul that simply doesn’t work.

***

In the months before the launch almost every senior member of the Obama administration had a little calendar board tacked up in a prominent spot in their office. “75 days until Obamacare” it would say. The next morning they would tear off the page. “74 days until Obamacare” it would say. The message — to them and to their visitors — was clear: This was the White House’s top priority.

We’re now negative 14 days until the Affordable Care Act and most people still can’t purchase insurance. The magnitude of this failure is stunning. Yes, the federal health-care law is a complicated project, government IT rules are a mess, and the scrutiny has been overwhelming. But the Obama administration knew all that going in. They should’ve been able to build an online portal that works.

Early on, President Obama like to compare the launch of the Affordable Care Act to Apple launching a new product. Can you imagine how many people Steve Jobs would’ve fired by now if he’d launched a new product like this?

***

Is there someone in the federal government who will be held accountable for the fact that many Americans are still encountering problems as they seek to sign up for insurance on the federal exchange?

Administration officials, who could not be reached immediately for comment, have not identified which officials at Health and Human Services were directly in charge of the new computer enrollment system, or which companies are most involved with fixing it now. Both GCI Federal and Quality Software Services Inc. helped construct the Web site and data hub, respectively…

“Despite our warnings that the law was not ready for prime time, the administration repeatedly brushed us off, proclaiming everything was ‘on track,” said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton in a statement Monday. “The first two weeks of enrollment have been a nightmare, and we now know despite over three years to prepare, the administration was in over its head. After hundreds of millions of dollars spent on a shoddy website and numerous broken promises, the American people deserve answers, and we are going to get to the bottom of this mess in the coming weeks.”

***

“Healthcare.gov was initially going to include an option to browse before registering,” report Christopher Weaver and Louise Radnofsky in the Wall Street Journal. “But that tool was delayed, people familiar with the situation said.” Why was it delayed? “An HHS spokeswoman said the agency wanted to ensure that users were aware of their eligibility for subsidies that could help pay for coverage, before they started seeing the prices of policies.” (Emphasis added.)…

The answer is that Obamacare wasn’t designed to help healthy people with average incomes get health insurance. It was designed to force those people to pay more for coverage, in order to subsidize insurance for people with incomes near the poverty line, and those with chronic or costly medical conditions.

But the laws’ supporters and enforcers don’t want you to know that, because it would violate the President’s incessantly repeated promise that nothing would change for the people that Obamacare doesn’t directly help. If you shop for Obamacare-based coverage without knowing if you qualify for subsidies, you might be discouraged by the law’s steep costs…

This political objective—masking the true underlying cost of Obamacare’s insurance plans—far outweighed the operational objective of making the federal website work properly. Think about it the other way around. If the “Affordable Care Act” truly did make health insurance more affordable, there would be no need to hide these prices from the public.

***

The functional failures of the Affordable Care Act websites are well-documented, but the fundamental flaw is the law’s mind-numbing complexity. The officials who planned ObamaCare blame their Web engineers, but they’re passing the buck. ObamaCare is a hugely complicated approach to addressing problems in health care that have simpler solutions.

Software glitches are no surprise with such a complex system. For example, signing up uses a Byzantine process to check if a family is entitled to a subsidy, requiring data from dozens of federal and state agencies using databases built on different technology platforms…

These include Medicaid to determine eligibility, the Internal Revenue Service to determine insurance-premium subsidies based on income, and Homeland Security to confirm citizenship. To make sure the family isn’t covered elsewhere, the sites have to retrieve data from the Veterans Health Administration, the Office of Personnel Management and state Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Programs. Assuming a family is cleared and purchases a plan, the information has to be handed off cleanly to an insurance company.

The Government Accountability Office last year calculated that for the IRS alone, implementing ObamaCare would be a “massive undertaking that involves 47 different statutory provisions and extensive coordination.”

***

“I think we have missed a big issue. I don’t think there’s any question that this whole shutdown episode has covered for the bad rollout of ObamaCare,” said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), an ally of Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). “A lot of us warned that.”…

In many ways, this was the “train wreck” that Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) was actually talking about — a botched implementation that obscured the law’s coverage options.

But Obama didn’t receive a single question about the snafus at a news conference last week, despite an appearance before reporters that lasted more than an hour…

“I think we can fight the problems with ObamaCare in a more intelligent way than we have, and actually get some success out of it,” Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.), another leadership ally, told reporters. “But we are where we are.”

***

Back in the first week of the month, I was in Philadelphia and someone asked me if the reason HealthCare.gov wasn’t working was that the people running the site were furloughed because of the shutdown. I explained that no that isn’t the case and these are just two unrelated things that happened the same week in politics. Then in Cleveland last week a cab driver who found I was coming from DC explained to me how outrageous he thought it was that Republicans had shut down the websites that would have let him sign up for health insurance. And a bartender told me the GOP is getting what it wants out of the shutdown—Obamacare isn’t launching.

Which is to say that I think a large share of people don’t realize that this problems with the Affordable Care Act IT infrastructure have very little to do with Republicans and basically nothing to do with the shutdown.

After all, it’s confusing. Republicans did shut the government down. They did shut the government down in order to stop Obamacare. The shutdown came on the same week that Obamacare’s websites were supposed to launch. And for many people, the websites are not in fact working. So it’s natural—but wrong—to think that the non-functionality of the websites is the shutdown. It seems to be the case that many grassroots conservatives believed, pre-shutdown, that the Ted Cruz strategy could actually prevent Obamacare from launching. And now it seems to be the case that many grassroots liberals believe, in the wake of the botched website launch, that it’s Ted Cruz rather than IT contractors and their overseers in the administration who’ve screwed things up.

***

Once the administration figures out its technical issues, as it presumably will, Obamacare will move into the sticker-shock phase, as millions of Americans discover they will pay higher premiums, or higher deductibles, or both, for the same type of insurance they had before Obamacare. The Republican campaign would go all-out to inform Americans that that is on the way. And at every step, the GOP would play Obama’s promise: If you like your health coverage, you can keep it…

But it didn’t happen. The GOP chose instead to embark on its ill-fated drive to defund Obamacare. When that failed, Republicans made progressively weaker demands that the White House delay or somehow limit Obamacare, and those failed, too. In the meantime, the Republican effort has led to a partial shutdown of the government, now nearly two weeks old. And the shutdown battle has morphed into a fight over the debt limit and the possibility the nation will default on its debts next Thursday…

Instead of pounding Obama on the mandates, defects, false promises, and expense of Obamacare, Republicans ended up pounding themselves.

Of course the GOP will have more chances to fight Obamacare in the future. Long after a continuing resolution has been passed and the debt limit raised, Obamacare will still be a major, and for many unwelcome, factor in American life. But what an opportunity missed, at such a crucial time.

***

***

Via RCP.

***

Via the Daily Rushbo.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair

Quotes of the day

Quotesoftheday postedat10:01

Quotes of the day

posted at 10:01 pm on October 14, 2013 by Allahpundit

So two weeks in, here’s where we’re at: Many and perhaps most users can’t even get into the federal exchange system. Those who can are often stymied by errors, and can’t trust that any subsidized insurance prices they see will be accurate. And then, even if they do manage to get all the way through the system, their applications may not transmit properly to the insurers from whom they are trying to purchase insurance. In short, nothing works. It’s a failure at every level

In order for coverage to start on January 1, individuals will have to complete applications by December 15. And in order to avoid the law’s penalty for remaining uninsured, they’ll have to be enrolled by February 15 of next year—not the end of March.

In other words, the administration doesn’t really have six months to fix problems with the exchanges. Political pressure will build well before the end of March. If there isn’t significant progress in a fairly short period of time, I suspect we’ll start to see a lot more supporters begin to question the law, or at least start to wonder aloud about what to do with a health care overhaul that simply doesn’t work.

***

In the months before the launch almost every senior member of the Obama administration had a little calendar board tacked up in a prominent spot in their office. “75 days until Obamacare” it would say. The next morning they would tear off the page. “74 days until Obamacare” it would say. The message — to them and to their visitors — was clear: This was the White House’s top priority.

We’re now negative 14 days until the Affordable Care Act and most people still can’t purchase insurance. The magnitude of this failure is stunning. Yes, the federal health-care law is a complicated project, government IT rules are a mess, and the scrutiny has been overwhelming. But the Obama administration knew all that going in. They should’ve been able to build an online portal that works.

Early on, President Obama like to compare the launch of the Affordable Care Act to Apple launching a new product. Can you imagine how many people Steve Jobs would’ve fired by now if he’d launched a new product like this?

***

Is there someone in the federal government who will be held accountable for the fact that many Americans are still encountering problems as they seek to sign up for insurance on the federal exchange?

Administration officials, who could not be reached immediately for comment, have not identified which officials at Health and Human Services were directly in charge of the new computer enrollment system, or which companies are most involved with fixing it now. Both GCI Federal and Quality Software Services Inc. helped construct the Web site and data hub, respectively…

“Despite our warnings that the law was not ready for prime time, the administration repeatedly brushed us off, proclaiming everything was ‘on track,” said House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton in a statement Monday. “The first two weeks of enrollment have been a nightmare, and we now know despite over three years to prepare, the administration was in over its head. After hundreds of millions of dollars spent on a shoddy website and numerous broken promises, the American people deserve answers, and we are going to get to the bottom of this mess in the coming weeks.”

***

“Healthcare.gov was initially going to include an option to browse before registering,” report Christopher Weaver and Louise Radnofsky in the Wall Street Journal. “But that tool was delayed, people familiar with the situation said.” Why was it delayed? “An HHS spokeswoman said the agency wanted to ensure that users were aware of their eligibility for subsidies that could help pay for coverage, before they started seeing the prices of policies.” (Emphasis added.)…

The answer is that Obamacare wasn’t designed to help healthy people with average incomes get health insurance. It was designed to force those people to pay more for coverage, in order to subsidize insurance for people with incomes near the poverty line, and those with chronic or costly medical conditions.

But the laws’ supporters and enforcers don’t want you to know that, because it would violate the President’s incessantly repeated promise that nothing would change for the people that Obamacare doesn’t directly help. If you shop for Obamacare-based coverage without knowing if you qualify for subsidies, you might be discouraged by the law’s steep costs…

This political objective—masking the true underlying cost of Obamacare’s insurance plans—far outweighed the operational objective of making the federal website work properly. Think about it the other way around. If the “Affordable Care Act” truly did make health insurance more affordable, there would be no need to hide these prices from the public.

***

The functional failures of the Affordable Care Act websites are well-documented, but the fundamental flaw is the law’s mind-numbing complexity. The officials who planned ObamaCare blame their Web engineers, but they’re passing the buck. ObamaCare is a hugely complicated approach to addressing problems in health care that have simpler solutions.

Software glitches are no surprise with such a complex system. For example, signing up uses a Byzantine process to check if a family is entitled to a subsidy, requiring data from dozens of federal and state agencies using databases built on different technology platforms…

These include Medicaid to determine eligibility, the Internal Revenue Service to determine insurance-premium subsidies based on income, and Homeland Security to confirm citizenship. To make sure the family isn’t covered elsewhere, the sites have to retrieve data from the Veterans Health Administration, the Office of Personnel Management and state Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Programs. Assuming a family is cleared and purchases a plan, the information has to be handed off cleanly to an insurance company.

The Government Accountability Office last year calculated that for the IRS alone, implementing ObamaCare would be a “massive undertaking that involves 47 different statutory provisions and extensive coordination.”

***

“I think we have missed a big issue. I don’t think there’s any question that this whole shutdown episode has covered for the bad rollout of ObamaCare,” said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), an ally of Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio). “A lot of us warned that.”…

In many ways, this was the “train wreck” that Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) was actually talking about — a botched implementation that obscured the law’s coverage options.

But Obama didn’t receive a single question about the snafus at a news conference last week, despite an appearance before reporters that lasted more than an hour…

“I think we can fight the problems with ObamaCare in a more intelligent way than we have, and actually get some success out of it,” Rep. Charles Boustany (R-La.), another leadership ally, told reporters. “But we are where we are.”

***

Back in the first week of the month, I was in Philadelphia and someone asked me if the reason HealthCare.gov wasn’t working was that the people running the site were furloughed because of the shutdown. I explained that no that isn’t the case and these are just two unrelated things that happened the same week in politics. Then in Cleveland last week a cab driver who found I was coming from DC explained to me how outrageous he thought it was that Republicans had shut down the websites that would have let him sign up for health insurance. And a bartender told me the GOP is getting what it wants out of the shutdown—Obamacare isn’t launching.

Which is to say that I think a large share of people don’t realize that this problems with the Affordable Care Act IT infrastructure have very little to do with Republicans and basically nothing to do with the shutdown.

After all, it’s confusing. Republicans did shut the government down. They did shut the government down in order to stop Obamacare. The shutdown came on the same week that Obamacare’s websites were supposed to launch. And for many people, the websites are not in fact working. So it’s natural—but wrong—to think that the non-functionality of the websites is the shutdown. It seems to be the case that many grassroots conservatives believed, pre-shutdown, that the Ted Cruz strategy could actually prevent Obamacare from launching. And now it seems to be the case that many grassroots liberals believe, in the wake of the botched website launch, that it’s Ted Cruz rather than IT contractors and their overseers in the administration who’ve screwed things up.

***

Once the administration figures out its technical issues, as it presumably will, Obamacare will move into the sticker-shock phase, as millions of Americans discover they will pay higher premiums, or higher deductibles, or both, for the same type of insurance they had before Obamacare. The Republican campaign would go all-out to inform Americans that that is on the way. And at every step, the GOP would play Obama’s promise: If you like your health coverage, you can keep it…

But it didn’t happen. The GOP chose instead to embark on its ill-fated drive to defund Obamacare. When that failed, Republicans made progressively weaker demands that the White House delay or somehow limit Obamacare, and those failed, too. In the meantime, the Republican effort has led to a partial shutdown of the government, now nearly two weeks old. And the shutdown battle has morphed into a fight over the debt limit and the possibility the nation will default on its debts next Thursday…

Instead of pounding Obama on the mandates, defects, false promises, and expense of Obamacare, Republicans ended up pounding themselves.

Of course the GOP will have more chances to fight Obamacare in the future. Long after a continuing resolution has been passed and the debt limit raised, Obamacare will still be a major, and for many unwelcome, factor in American life. But what an opportunity missed, at such a crucial time.

***

***

Via RCP.

***

Via the Daily Rushbo.


Related Posts:

Source from: hotair