Report Says Obama Adminstration Failed To Follow Health Law

The nonpartisan investigative agency of Congress says the Obama administration failed to follow the president's health care law in a $5 billion dispute over compensating insurers for high costs from seriously ill patients.

The finding by the Government Accountability Office is a setback for the White House and bolsters Republican complaints that administration officials bent the law as problems arose carrying out its complicated provisions.

The law specified that $5 billion from a $25 billion fee to compensate insurers would go directly to the Treasury. But when fee collections fell short, the administration failed to allocate a share of money to the Treasury.

Thank you for referencing that article tekrat. Please note that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

"Report Says Obama Adminstration Failed To Follow Health Law"

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

Patriots beware !

The corrupt feds, in cahoots with the likewise corrupt media, are evidently determined to continue misleading the voters about major constitutional problems with Obamacare.

From related threads …

More specifically, regardless what lawless Obama’s state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices want everybody to think about the constitutionality of Obamacare, previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified the following about so-called federal healthcare.

The states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for INTRAstate healthcare purposes. This is evidenced by the excerpts below from Supreme Court case opinions.

Regarding the constitutionality of the Obamacare insurance mandate for example, note the fourth entry in the list below from Paul v. Virginia. In that case, justices had clarified that regulating insurance is not within the scope of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers (1.8.3), regardless if the parties negotiating the insurance policy are domiciled in different states.

"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. [emphases added]" - Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." - Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass." -Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.
"4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract [emphasis added] of indemnity against loss." - Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)
"Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphases added] beyond the power of Congress." - Linder v. United States, 1925.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. ...” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

So what the corrupt Supreme Court’s green light for unconstitutional Obamacare actually did was to show how corrupt all three branches of the unconstitutionally big federal government are, the feds wrongly not securing the required consent of the Constitution’s Article V state supermajority before establishing Obamacare.

In fact, Thomas Jefferson had wisely suggested that the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers should be interpreted narrowly to compel the states to amend the Constitution for new federal powers if necessary.

"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.

Remember in November !

Patriots need to support Trump / Pence by also electing a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will not only work within its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers to support Trump’s vision for making America great again for everybody, but will also put a stop to unconstitutonal federal taxes and likewise unconstitutional inteference in state affairs as evidenced by unconstitutional Obamacare.

Note that such a Congress will also probably be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.