SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (191332)5/12/2016 2:57:28 PM
From: rayrohn2 Recommendations

Recommended By
FJB
Investor Clouseau

  Respond to of 224756
 
Texas Secession Looms As "Independence Resolution" Nears Vote


Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/12/2016 13:21 -0400

Authored by Josh Harkinson, originally posted at MotherJones.com,

If the nationalists get their way, this November might be the last time Texans vote for a US president.





On Wednesday, the Platform Committee of the Texas Republican Party voted to put a Texas independence resolution up for a vote at this week's GOP convention, according to a press release from the pro-secession Texas Nationalist Movement. The resolution calls for allowing voters to decide whether the Lone Star State should become an independent nation.

Texas was, in fact, its own country for nine years before joining the United States in 1845, and while the idea of returning to independence has never been taken seriously by most people, it remains popular as a romantic notion and marketing hook. Lone Star beer is the "national beer of Texas." Texas Monthly is the "national magazine of Texas." In a 2009 rally, then-Gov. Rick Perry hinted that the state could secede if "Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people." He later backed off the idea. (Representatives of the state GOP and Texas Nationalist Movement could not be reached for comment.)

The Texas Nationalist Movement, once considered a quixotic fringe group, has added hundreds of members in the years since the election of Barack Obama.According to the Houston Chronicle's Dylan Baddour, at least 10 county GOP chapters are coming to the convention supporting independence resolutions. But this will be the first time in the state's 171-year history that they will actually vote on one. It's very unlikely to win. Then again, that's what people said about Donald Trump.

* * *

As we detailed previously, via SHTFPlan.com's Mac Slavo, secession, a formal declaration of independence, is by tradition the right of every Texan and American, and the Fed has doubtlessly crossed the line too many times to count. Fed up Americans are looking for ways to voice their anger, and Texans have a notoriously short fuse, a history of independence and tendencies to secede. But the powers that be may have also fueled a trap on sovereignty. What is shirked at the federal level may be accepted at the international level.

The bankers and social engineers are practiced at ruling by divide and conquer to avoid personally confronting pitchforks and angry townspeople. There is a plan underway, which has already been exposed, known as the North American Union. Sponsored by Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs and organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations, the agenda is creating a globalized world that will use immigration to upend politics, shift demographics, supply corporate labor and fracture society.

Like NAFTA before it, the plan will destroy jobs and displace millions of workers, creating new waves of migration across the border. Further integration will restructure shipping, energy and transportation, all while building a scapegoat for the engineered economic collapse that will rile up the masses.

Like a doctor setting a fracture, the underwriters of the North American plan to actually break up regions of America to ‘enhance’ the management and control of society at many levels. According to author Jerome Corsi:
Understanding the plan to merge the U.S., Mexico and Canada, says Corsi, is “the only context in which the current immigration travesty makes sense – and it must be stopped.” This aim to create a North American Union between the United States, Mexico and Canada is the real reason behind “comprehensive immigration reform.”

“A North American Union would not just be the end of America as we know it,” claims Corsi, “but the beginning of an EU-like nightmare – a bureaucratic coup d’etat foisted upon millions of Americans without their knowledge or consent.”

Thus, the big banks and power brokers are interested in Texas secession, or at least could exploit it easily:

How might secession transition from a fringe idea to a country-ender? In my conversations with economists, political scientists, and futurists, three broad themes came up that I found the most persuasive: economic collapse, the rise of localism, and North American reshuffling.

Let’s say there’s an American revolution—who leaves first? Once the feds “start imposing just huge taxes,” [Peter] Schiff says, the states that have to pay more in than they’re getting back out will pull their stars off the flag. Schiff lists Texas and California as potential pull-out candidates, whereas “Florida probably wants to stay because of all the Social Security money.” […]

North America’s borders have remained pretty much static for the last century… But this stability shouldn’t imply that our dividing lines make sense. In 1981’s Nine Nations of North America, Joel Garreau argued that the continent’s borders don’t reflect how we live. Garreau’s nine nations map—which highlighted regions where people share common values, culture, and natural resources—wasn’t intended to be predictive of a future breakup [Ed. Note: yet could be spot on].

Take away the artificial borders and we’re all just North Americans… If America ends, so will Canada and Mexico. And if Canada or Mexico goes down the tubes, we won’t be long for this continent either. (Source)

Taken the wrong way by the media, secession and ‘fightin’ talk’ about immigration allow the system to play off the sentiment of the locales and provide friction to open up action. This strategy creates new problems, and give new agency powers to those who could offer to provide solutions. These are new realms for experts to manage, and corporations to service. Remember that calls to secession have been led by bought out “yee haw” politicians like Rick Perry. The gun toting standoff rhetoric has been largely manufactured by scripted suits funded by lobbyists.

Nonetheless, a breaking point is bound to come somewhere, at sometime. As one commenter put it:

“Most Texans do not want to break away from the United States. Most Texans consider themselves Americans. But if ever being American means sacrificing our liberties, we will just prefer to be Texans.”

Is this why FEMA has been training Texas police to deal with riots?



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (191332)5/12/2016 3:16:25 PM
From: rayrohn2 Recommendations

Recommended By
FJB
TideGlider

  Respond to of 224756
 
Hospital Stocks Fall After Ruling Against Obamacare Funding
John Lauerman

May 12, 2016 — 1:03 PM CDT

Tenet, HCA, Community Health shares down after ruling

Health insurers including Aetna, Anthem also declined

Hospital stocks dropped after a federal judge in Washington ruled that some of the funding for President Barack Obama’s signature health-care law is unconstitutional, potentially jeopardizing a source of their revenue.

Community Health Systems Inc. fell 11 percent to $12.50 at 1:57 p.m. Tenet Healthcare Corp. lost 7.9 percent to $29 and HCA Holdings Inc., the biggest U.S. for-profit hospital chain, was down 3.4 percent to $77.45. Shares of health insurers, including Anthem Inc. and Aetna Inc., also declined.

In another blow dealt to the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare, Judge Rosemary Collyer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled Thursday that the administration doesn’t have the power to provide money to reduce patients’ sharing in the costs of their health care without a congressional appropriation. The court stayed its ruling pending an appeal by the administration.

The ruling is a victory for the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, which brought the suit challenging the payments alleging that Health and Human Services and Treasury secretaries were spending “public monies not appropriated by the Congress.”



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (191332)5/12/2016 3:24:32 PM
From: rayrohn2 Recommendations

Recommended By
FJB
TideGlider

  Respond to of 224756
 
Major Court Ruling Against Obamacare, "Insurers Will Scream"


Submitted by Tyler Durden on 05/12/2016 14:52 -0400

Submitted by Mish Shedlock of MishTalk

Healthcare insurers are already taking it on the chin. Some insurers got out of the healthcare business entirely, others stopped coverage in multiple states due to mounting losses.

What happened is healthy individuals, especially millennials decided to opt out of Obamacare. Those who opted in after having been denied coverage previously were high-cost individuals.

Adding fat to the fire, a federal court ruled today that “cost sharing reductions” to insurers are unconstitutional payments.

Please consider Judge Rules for House GOP in ObamaCare Suit.

In a major ruling, Judge Rosemary Collyer, an appointee of President George W. Bush, said the administration does not have the power to spend money on “cost sharing reduction” payments to insurers without an appropriation from Congress.

Collyer stayed her ruling so the administration can appeal the decision.

At issue are billions of dollars in “cost sharing reduction payments” under ObamaCare which are paid to insurance companies so they can reduce out of pocket costs such as deductibles for low income people on ObamaCare plans.

The House GOP argued that the administration was unconstitutionally spending money on these payments without an appropriation from Congress.

The administration argued it did not need an appropriation from Congress because the funds were already permanently appropriated by ObamaCare in the same section as the law’s better known tax credits that help people afford coverage.

However, Collyer ruled that the section only appropriated funds for tax credits, and said the cost sharing reductions require a separate congressional appropriation, which the administration does not currently have.

“Such an appropriation cannot be inferred,” Collyer wrote. “None of Secretaries’ extra-textual arguments — whether based on economics, ‘unintended’ results, or legislative history — is persuasive. The Court will enter judgment in favor of the House of Representatives and enjoin the use of unappropriated monies to fund reimbursements due to insurers under Section 1402.”

Judge Rosemary Mayers Collyer



Judge Rosemary Mayers Collyer (born November 19, 1945) is a United States District Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and a member of the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

On August 1, 2002, Collyer was nominated by President George W. Bush to a seat on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia vacated by Thomas Penfield Jackson. Collyer was confirmed by the United States Senate on November 14, 2002, and received commission on November 15, 2002. She has announced that she will take senior status on May 18, 2016.

Senior status equates to semi-retirement. Last October, Collyer Refused to Let House ObamaCare Suit Move to Another Court.

Court Case

Collyer’s ruling seems to make sense. However, this case is surely headed to higher courts.

I do not pretend to know how those courts will rule.

Potential End of Obamacare

Many lawsuits were filed against Obamacare, some of them outright frivolous. This once could potentially stick.

Should the case go the the Supreme Court, it is conceivable a ruling might depend on who wins the presidential election this November.

Meanwhile there are going to be lots of skittish insurers with serious concerns. Already, many insurers are bleeding cash and dumping Obamacare.

This could mean the end of Obamacare, at least as we know it.



To: Kenneth E. Phillipps who wrote (191332)5/12/2016 4:00:22 PM
From: TideGlider1 Recommendation

Recommended By
isopatch

  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224756
 
Judge sides with House Republicans against health care law

By SAM HANANEL and RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR

May. 12, 2016 3:33 PM EDT




1 photo

FILE - In this Oct. 6, 2015, file photo, the HealthCare.gov website, where people can buy health... Read more





By: SAM HANANEL (AP), RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR (AP)

WASHINGTON Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
38.8951-77.0364

WASHINGTON (AP) — In a setback for the federal health care law, a federal judge ruled Thursday that the Obama administration is unconstitutionally subsidizing medical bills for millions of people while ignoring congressional power over government spending.

The ruling from U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer was a win for House Republicans who brought the politically charged legal challenge in an effort to undermine the law.

If the decision is upheld, it could roil the health care law's insurance markets, which are still struggling for stability after three years.

Collyer said her ruling would be put on hold while it is appealed. The White House expressed confidence it would be overturned.



Sponsored Links


The Motley Fool

Motley Fool Is Releasing New Stock Picks - Are You On The List?The Motley Fool

Undo


LendingTree

4 Cards That Charge $0 In Interest Until Summer 2017LendingTree

Undo

At issue is the $175 billion the government is paying to reimburse health insurers over a decade to reduce deductibles and co-payments for lower-income people.

The House argues that Congress never specifically appropriated that money and has denied an administration request for it. Collyer agreed that the administration is exceeding its constitutional authority by spending the money anyway. She rejected the administration's argument that the law authorizes the money automatically.

House Republicans launched the lawsuit in 2014 over Democrats' objections. The House had already voted dozens of times to repeal all or parts of the law Republicans call "Obamacare," but those efforts went nowhere, failing to overcome opposition from Senate Democrats and the president.

So the House turned its focus to tying up money spent on the law. Republican House leaders asserted that the Obama administration couldn't spend money that lawmakers refused to provide.

House Speaker Paul Ryan called the decision "an historic win for the Constitution and the American people."

"The court ruled that the administration overreached by spending taxpayer money without approval from the people's representatives," he said in a statement.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said that House Republicans ultimately would lose the case.

"This suit represents the first time in our nation's history that Congress has been permitted to sue the executive branch over a disagreement about how to interpret a statute," Earnest said.

"It's unfortunate that Republicans have resorted to a taxpayer-funded lawsuit to refight a political fight that they keep losing," Earnest added. "They have been losing this fight for six years. And they'll lose it again."

The administration is expected to appeal Thursday's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, where a majority of active judges have been appointed by Democrats.

Collyer was appointed to the district court by President George W. Bush, a Republican.

About 12.7 million people are covered through the law's insurance markets. The disputed subsidies help lower-earning customers afford out-of-pocket costs, such as annual insurance deductibles and co-payments, when they seek medical care.

These subsidies, called "cost-sharing reductions" are separate from the financial aid provided under the law to help people pay their monthly premiums, which would not be affected.

But that doesn't make the cost-sharing subsidies any less important. Without them, millions of people may not be able to afford to use their health insurance.

Here's why: The most popular policies are skinny plans with low monthly premiums but high deductibles and copayments. The average annual deductible for a silver plan — the kind picked by about 7 in 10 health law customers — is nearly $2,900, according to the consulting firm Avalere Health.

Under the law, insurers have to provide cost-sharing assistance to consumers who earn up to two-and-a-half times the federal poverty level, or $60,750 for a family of four.

The government is then required to reimburse insurers for the cost of the subsidies. The administration maintains that the law authorizes the government to provide the money automatically, without going back to Congress for approval each year.

But Collyer rejected that argument, saying appropriating the money is up to lawmakers. "That is Congress' prerogative," Collyer wrote. "The court cannot override it by rewriting" the law.

If congressional approval for the spending is required, Congress' GOP majority can just shut it off. And if that happens, the administration says the only option insurers have would be to raise insurance premiums significantly.

However, more insurers might just decide to bail out of the health law markets. Major companies already are struggling to make money on the program.

The White House had earlier argued that the House had no legal authority to pursue its lawsuit, but Collyer rejected that argument and allowed it to proceed.

Former House Speaker John Boehner, who authorized the lawsuit, tweeted that the decision "is a victory for the American people, and for House Republicans, who have stood firm for the rule of law."

In another case last year, the Supreme Court threw out a challenge to the law's subsidies for premiums. However, the legal issues in that case were much different.