Courtesy of Heritage Action

Obamacare plans cost more even with subsidies.

Obama's backtracking on "keep your plan" could cause market destabilization, higher premiums and lower competition.

Logistically impossible for insurance companies to offer cancelled plans.

Does Kathleen Sebelius have any idea what the requirements of Obamacare are? Apparently not.

As a member of a United Methodist congregation, I take a special interest in what the elites of the church are up to. In the past, I have been really critical of their policies and beliefs. So once again, I am must call out more nonsense coming from the UMC.

Refresher: Remember when Nancy Pelosi said this?

Apparently, the United Methodist Church was a part of the whole "let's pass Obamacare and figure it all out later" crowd. Unfortunately for them, it might wind up costing them....

When Obamacare became law, the church elites were joyous. The president of the of the Council of Bishops, Gregory Palmer "rejoiced" when Obamacare passed. Jim Winkler, the radical left-wing chief executive of the United Methodist Board of Church and Society, had this to say:

Heck even Nancy Pelosi had the entire UMC Board of Church and Society listed on her website as a group supporting the healthcare overhaul.Well, that was then. This is now. In an article posted on the UMC's website on September 24th, the UMC now wants an Obamacare "fix" for them:

I'll be honest. It is really, really, hard for me to feel sorry for these people. The UMC made its bed. Let it lay in it.

It was so important to pass Obamacare. It just had to be done and it had to be done fast. No one knew what was in it. No one knew what all implications there would be. Not a single person knew. Not Obama, not Harry Reid, not Nancy Pelosi, not any of the idiots who voted for it, not Jim Winkler and not Gregory Palmer.

Yet, they were so happy! And now look at what is happening. The very law that they "rejoiced" when passed is getting ready to screw them. So what do they do? Yell and scream and demand that it be "fixed" for them. What about the rest of us? What about all the people that will lose their insurance? What about all the people who is having their hours cut? Is the UMC standing up for these people? No, no and no.

Awaiting me in my inbox tonight was an email from the junior Senator from Tennessee, Bob Corker. He attempts to justify his vote for funding Obamacare and it makes me sick. Here is his email:

I wanted to take the opportunity to share my position during what has been a confusing debate on the Senate floor over the last few days.  Like you, I am concerned about the negative effects the President's health care reform law is having on our state, our country, and future generations.  I have continued to oppose Obamacare at every turn, including efforts to repeal and defund it.   

Today, I voted in support of advancing the House continuing resolution that would permanently defund Obamacare while funding the federal government.  After the defunding provision in the bill was struck by an amendment that I opposed, I voted against passage of the amended bill.  The bill, nonetheless, passed the Senate with only Democratic votes, and now moves back to the House.  In the House, Republicans have the majority and can make other good policy changes that continue the fight against Obamacare.  I hope the House can send something back to the Senate that will pass both chambers.

Some have suggested that it would be better to shut down the government rather than accept a bill that lacks the Obamacare defunding provision.  But this would be self-defeating: a shutdown would not prevent Obamacare's implementation because the funding for it is almost entirely mandatory, meaning that it occurs regardless of a shutdown.  This tactic would only divert attention from the cascading reports of the very real consequences of the law for individuals, families and American businesses.  

This doesn't mean we say "game over."  It means we work toward actual solutions that have a possibility of becoming a reality.  I look forward to the Senate taking up the bill again after the House improves it.

Does he think we are stupid? Let's review:

I have continued to oppose Obamacare at every turn
This is an outright lie. Bob Corker did NOT oppose Obamacare "at every turn." If he truly opposed Obamacare at every turn he would have voted AGAINST cloture, which leads us to....

After the defunding provision in the bill was struck by an amendment that I opposed, I voted against passage of the amended bill.  The bill, nonetheless, passed the Senate with only Democratic votes, and now moves back to the House
No crap Corker! This is exactly why you should NOT HAVE VOTED FOR CLOTURE! The Cruz/Lee coalition said this would happen and anyone with two brain cells to rub together knew the Democrats would do this. If Corker and the other traitors would have voted against cloture, the Democrats could have never proposed and then eventually passed the amendment that funded Obamacare! Corker played parliamentary games which lead to funding Obamacare. Now, he wants us to believe that he fought against funding Obamacare when it was funded BECAUSE of his vote for cloture or as he puts it, he "voted in support of advancing the House continuing resolution that would permanently defund Obamacare. "

Some have suggested that it would be better to shut down the government rather than accept a bill that lacks the Obamacare defunding provision.  But this would be self-defeating
And here we have it. Corker is admitting his cowardice. He is so afraid of a government shutdown that he voted to fund Obamacare. We have a monstrous piece of legislation waiting to unleash all sorts of havoc on the American people and Bob Corker backs down from defunding it because why? A national park might close for a day or two? Pathetic.

Bottom line: Obamacare was funded in the Senate today because of Bob Corker. No amount of spinning on his part will change this.

By now much has been written and said about the Supreme Court upholding Obamacare but I'm still going to throw my two cents worth out there 

Instead of focusing on this decision from a political perspective, I want to focus on it from a Constitutional perspective. How did the Justices reach the decision that the penalty for not purchasing health insurance was Constitutional?

(WARNING: The following information might cause uncontrollable laughing and/or crying, face-palming, and/or fits of rage)

For the logic and arguments used in the ruling, I turned to the Chicago-Kent University's Supreme Court Media website, Oyez.org. Link here.

The High Court was faced with four questions, but I am only going to focus on two:

1. Is the suit brought by respondents to challenge the minimum coverage provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, 2 U.S.C. 7421(a)?  (The Anti-Injunction Act essentially states that someone must first pay a tax in order to challenge it in court. First, the Supremes had to determine whether the penalty for not having health insurance was indeed a tax. If it was, then no one would have standing to challenge it because it has not been assessed yet on anyone.)  
2. Does Congress have power under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, specifically under the Commerce Clause or the Taxing and Spending Clause, to require most Americans to purchase health insurance?
   
   

Here is where the legal gymnastics begin and the Constitution and common sense end. The first question is answered:

"The justices unanimously agreed that the Anti-Injunction Act did not bar the suit. Congress did not intend that the payment for non-compliance with the Individual Mandate be a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act."

Ok. So, the Court unanimously said that the penalty for not complying with the Individual Mandate was not a tax based on Congress "not intending" it to be. Congress could have said that it was a tax, but they did not. Therefore, the Court reasoned, that the Anti-Injunction Act did not come into play because the penalty is not a tax.

Let's stop right here. After reading this, you would think that the second question could now be answered. If Congress did not declare the penalty as a tax, then Congress does not have the authority under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution to enact the Individual Mandate. How did the Court respond?

"Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, concluded that the Individual Mandate penalty is a tax for the purposes of the Constitution's Taxing and Spending Clause and is a valid exercise of Congressional authority."

Confused? In a matter of moments, the Court contradicted itself. Now they are claiming that it IS a tax and is justified under the Constitution's Taxing and Spending Clause. Riiiight............ Let's put it in even more simplistic terms so the Democrats can understand:

The Obamacare penalty is not a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. 
The Obamacare penalty is a tax and is a valid under the Constitution's Taxing and Spending Clause.

I could see Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan making an absurd claim like this. After all, they are radical leftist judicial activists with no respect for our Constitution or rule of law. But John Roberts? What the hell was he thinking? 

The dissenting Justices pointed out the flaw in this thinking.

"As part of a jointly written dissenting opinion, Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito disagreed, arguing that because Congress characterized the payment as a penalty, to instead characterize it as a tax would amount to rewriting the Act."

Hmmmmm. Congress did not characterize the payment as a tax. Congress. Did. Not. Characterize. The. Payment. As. A. Tax. Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, from the same people who said the penalty IS a tax! 

This begs the question: Why didn't the five anti-Constitutionalist Justices declare it a tax it when determining if the Obamacare challengers had standing under the Anti-Injunction Act? The challenge would have ended there and Obamacare would have been upheld. My theory is that they wanted/had to get to the second question. They wanted so badly to set the precedent  that Congress has the authority to tax inactivity,  they were willing to make idiots of themselves to do so. The Anti-Injunction Act had to be gotten around in order to get to what they really wanted to rule on. What better way do this than to simply say  that it's not a tax and therefore the Anti-Injunction Act doesn't apply?

RIP Constitution