Saturday, April 29, 2017


 He just needs to end the insurance company subsidies
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
WASHINGTON, D.C. – President Trump can put an end to Obamacare on his own, without requiring Congress to take any action at all.
How is this possible?
All President Trump must do to “repeal” Obamacare is sign an Executive Order instructing the Solicitor General to withdraw the Obama administration’s appeal in the federal district court case U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell, (130 F. Supp. 3d 53, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 2016).
The result will be to immediately defund the low-income insurance company subsidies being paid by the federal government under Section 1402 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), causing Obamacare to collapse, almost immediately.
The point is Congress never funded any taxpayer funds to pay the low-income insurance subsidies that are at the heart of making the ACA work.

What is at issue is Section 1402 of the ACA – a section written to provide federal subsidies to insurance companies for insurance purchased on state insurance exchanges to cover the difference between the capped maximum a low-income purchaser could be expected to pay and the amount the insurance cost.
Without funds provided by Congress to pay the low-income insurance subsidies under 1402, Obamacare collapses almost immediately.

No insurance company can long afford to provide low-income health insurance at a discount, unless the federal government pays the difference between what the insurance truly costs and the limited amount low-income purchasers can pay.
The problem is that Congress refused to pass an appropriation to fund Section 1402, leaving the Obama administration scrambling to find funds somewhere else in the federal budget that could be diverted to pay the low-income insurance subsidies. has proved through an analysis of the Treasury Department balance sheets that the Obama administration found a solution in August 2012, when the Treasury Department decided that earnings confiscated from the Government-Sponsored Entities (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the “Net Worth Sweep” (NWS), could be diverted to pay the ACA low-income insurance subsidies.
The record contained in the Treasury Department balance sheets shows through 2013 a direct diversion of the NWS into line items used to fund Obamacare.
After 2013, the Obama administration continued the NWS (ultimately confiscating some $260 billion from Fannie and Freddie), but the one-for-one diversion of the Fannie and Freddie funds going into line items used to fund Obamacare is less clear, suggesting Treasury grew more clever after 2013 in hiding the diversion within the Treasury general account used as a slush fund.
The House of Representatives filed a federal district court case against then Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Matthews Burwell to stop the Obamacare from diverting federal funds to pay the ACA low-income subsidies.
On May 12, 2016, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Collyer, in the case U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell, ruled against Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Matthews Burwell.
Judge Collyer decided HHS Secretary Burwell had no constitutional authority to divert funds Congress appropriated to one section of the ACA to fund Obamacare subsidy payments to insurers under another section of the ACA, Section 1402 – the clause defining the insurer subsidies – when Congress specifically declined to appropriate any funds to Section 1402 for paying the insurance subsidy.
“Paying out Section 1402 reimbursements without an appropriation thus violates the Constitution,” Judge Collyer concluded.
“Congress authorized reduced cost sharing but did not appropriate monies for it, in the Fiscal Year 2014 budget or since,” she stressed.
The Obama administration appealed the District Court decision in U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, deciding on its own authority that federal funds could continue to be diverted from other budgetary purposes to continue paying the insurance subsidies as long as the case was under appeal.
The point is that if the Trump administration simply decided to drop the Circuit Court appeal in Burwell, the District Court decision would become established law.
The result would be the Trump administration would be forbidden from diverting federal funds to pay the ACA insurance subsidies, with the result Obama care would implode.
“The Obama administration appealed the decision, but if the Trump administration were to drop that appeal, the subsidies would disappear,” commented Julie Rovner, Kaiser Health News, in an article published on April 9, 2017.
If insurance companies were forced to take a loss by absorbing the cost above what low-income insured could afford to pay for the insurance coverage required under Obamacare, no insurance company could afford to provide health insurance to low-income insureds under the ACA.
Once President Trump withdraws the Obama administration appeal in U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell, Obamacare becomes history.
To revive Obamacare, Congress would have to pass a resolution funding ACA Section 1402, something even RINOs like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell might find politically suicidal to do.
UN: Repealing ObamaCare Violates 
“International Law” 
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
The United Nations is again acting as a wannabe global government and perverting the meaning of human rights, warning the Trump administration in a bizarre letter that repealing the unconstitutional ObamaCare takeover of health insurance may violate what the UN likes to call “international law.” However, critics were quick to ridicule the UN and its alleged legal reasoning. Instead of acquiescing, they called for the U.S. government to withdraw from the scandal-plagued, dictator-controlled UN “Human Rights Council” altogether.
The UN's legal "reasoning" was based on a number of unconstitutional international agreements, some of which have never even been ratified by the U.S. government. According to a UN “special rapporteur,” abolishing the so-called Affordable Care Act (ACA) would represent a violation of the UN's “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” As The New American has documented extensively, the UN document perverts the very meaning of rights and stands in direct contradiction to American notions of God-given, unalienable rights enshrined in America's founding documents.
The UN also pointed to other obscure global agreements, including at least one that the U.S. government never even ratified. And yet, the UN has nonetheless weaponized the unratified scheme to dictate policy to nations around the world, and especially the United States. Despite the UN's bogus claims, however, the U.S. Constitution remains the Supreme Law of the Land in the United States. That means any international agreements that conflict with it are null and void by definition. The authors of the U.S. Constitution and even the U.S. Supreme Court have made that crystal clear.

The threatening UN letter in question, dated February 2, was sent to the U.S. government mission to the UN in Geneva by Dainius Puras (shown), the UN “Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.” And yes, that is his real title. He serves the almost comically discredited UN “Human Rights Council,” which, in addition to being run by a discredited prince from an Islamic dictatorship, is literally dominated by mass-murdering dictators and brutal autocrats infamous for their human-rights abuses.
In the letter, Puras, a Lithuanian psychiatrist, warns of his “serious concerns” about efforts to repeal ObamaCare. Among other UN instruments he describes falsely as “international law,” Puras points to Article 25 of the UN “human rights” declaration, which purports to mandate government healthcare.  “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services,” it says, fundamentally perverting the meaning of rights as they have always been understood in the Christian West and the United States in particular.
If Puras had gone down a bit further to Article 29 of that same UN declaration, he would have seen that any of the pseudo-“human rights” the UN purports to bestow on lowly humans can be revoked or limited under virtually any pretext — including, presumably, the phony “right” to take other people's money for whatever purpose. That same Article 29 also makes clear that the UN's pseudo-rights do not extend to opposing the UN's globalist agenda. “These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations,” the declaration says in clear language.
Puras claimed in the letter that the bizarre UN “human rights” document — a massive threat to the U.S. Constitution and the freedoms it protects — has “become a source and expression of international customary law.” He did not explain how or when that happened, or who supposedly gave approval for it on behalf of the American people. Next, the UN “rapporteur” claimed that “all States, including the United States of America, are obliged to protect and guarantee the rights therein.” Of course, in the real world, the U.S. government is explicitly prohibited by the Constitution from doing much of what Puras claims is obligatory. 
Separately, the UN bureaucrat pointed to Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESC). While acknowledging that the U.S. government has not ratified that scheme, he claimed the U.S. government is nevertheless “obliged to refrain from acts that would defeat the covenant’s object or purpose.” In other words, even though Americans never agreed to the scheme through their elected officials, in the UN's view, they must comply anyway. Self-government, then, would be a thing of the past if the UN were to get its way.  
Finally, the extremist UN “rapporteur” cited the “International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.” That scheme purportedly requires that national governments and dictatorships “guarantee the right of everyone,” including “the rights to public health, medical care, social security and social services,” without regard to race or color. Of course, the Constitution does not authorize the federal government to provide healthcare to everyone, so without a constitutional amendment delegating such authority to Washington, D.C., that power is reserved to the states or the people. The U.S. government is legally prohibited from expanding its powers using treaties. 
Of course, despite the UN's latest false claims purporting to decree “international laws,” the UN Charter — even assuming it were a legitimate document — specifically prohibits UN interference in domestic issues. “Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state,” Article 2 (7) of the UN Charter explains clearly. If healthcare is not a domestic issue, nothing is.
And yet, Puras claimed not only the authority to meddle, but the duty to do so. “It is my responsibility, under the mandates provided me by the Human Rights Council, to seek to clarify all cases brought to my attention,” he wrote, demanding that the letter be shared with congressional leaders and other U.S. officials. He also demanded more information from the Trump administration, including what policies might be put in place after ObamaCare is repealed, so he could see whether they conform to “international law.”
Finally, the bureaucrat, who was raised under a brutal communist system and so might be forgiven for not understanding liberty, brazenly threatened U.S. officials. Among other threats, he demanded that Trump officials take “all necessary interim measures to prevent the alleged violations” and to “ensure adequate measure [sic] to prevent their occurrence as well as to guarantee the accountability of any person responsible of [sic] the alleged violations.” What sort of “accountability” he had in mind for the alleged perpetrators was not specified.
And in the meantime, the UN rapporteur warned that he would “publicly express” his “concerns” in the “near future.” The Trump administration's response will be presented to the dictator-controlled UN “Human Rights Council” for its “consideration,” Puras concluded. The council is made up of 47 governments, including many of the most savage communist and Islamist dictatorships that have collectively murdered many tens of millions of people.   
UN “High Commissioner for Human Rights” Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, an Islamic prince who oversees the UN “Human Rights” apparatus, has long been a lightning rod for criticism and ridicule as well. Last year, for example, he claimed that “international law” supposedly “requires” that “robust gun control” be imposed on the United States, apparently unaware that the U.S. Constitution specifically prohibits that. More recently, during the U.S. election, Hussein viciously attacked then-candidate Donald Trump, warning that he was a “threat” to the world and equating his tactics with those of ISIS.
And that is just the start. Hussein also played a key role in protecting child-raping UN “peace” troops while persecuting the whistleblowers, such as Anders Kompass, who tried to stop it and protect the children. And in February, it emerged that Hussein and other UNHCHR bureaucrats had persecuted a whistleblower who exposed UNHCHR officials identifying dissidents to the Communist Chinese dictatorship, also a member of the UN “Human Rights Council” despite murdering more human beings than any government in human history. Several of those dissidents were kidnapped and killed following the leaks. And Hussein punished the whistleblower, instead.
The UN's legions of discredited “special rapporteurs,” meanwhile, have also developed a reputation for idiocy. In the United Kingdom, for example, a nutty UN special rapporteur infamous for sacrificing an animal to Karl Marx was relentlessly ridiculed for accusing the U.K. government of “human rights violations” because welfare recipients were not being given large enough houses. In Switzerland, the UN bureaucrats attacked stay-at-home mothers as a human-rights violation. In Canada, they claimed supposedly “low” taxes were a “human rights” violation. In Japan, free speech was a violation. In America, virtually everything from gun rights and regulations on killing preborn babies to child discipline, self-defense protections and even the name of a sports team has been called a “human rights” violation by UN officials. Indeed, as The New American has documented in detail, the UN now poses a grave threat to U.S. independence and self-government.
But critics were quick to lambaste the UN's latest meddling in U.S. healthcare. “Not a single taxpayer dollar should be wasted on replying to the questions submitted by the Special Rapporteur,” wrote Joseph Klein, author of Global Deception: The UN’s Stealth Assault on America’s Freedom. “And if he should issue a critical press release, as he has threatened to do, in advance of his presumably critical report to the UN Human Rights Council, this will provide yet another reason for the Trump administration to pull out of the dysfunctional, misnamed Human Rights Council and to withdraw funding.”
Even the far-left Washington Post writer who first broke the story, Dana Milbank, appeared to ridicule the notion that the UN would or could impose its will on America. “None of this, of course, will deter President Trump and congressional Republicans, who are again attempting to get a repeal bill through the House,” he wrote, saying the letter was of “questionable” legal value despite his obvious support for ObamaCare. “They scoff at lectures from U.N. bureaucrats, particularly on domestic affairs, and the world body has no practical way to impose its will on Congress. There’s also a logical question: If repealing Obamacare violates international law, wasn’t the country in violation before Obamacare?”
A better course of action than simply ignoring or ridiculing the UN's outrageous meddling in U.S. affairs, though, would be to have the U.S. government withdraw from the UN entirely in an “Amexit.” Already, legislation to do that, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act (H.R. 193), is sitting the House Foreign Affairs Committee of Congress awaiting action. With sufficient public pressure, lawmakers would have no choice but to pass it — and that pressure is growing stronger every day. If anything, the fact that the UN and its largely dictatorial member regimes oppose the repealing of ObamaCare is yet another excellent reason why Congress must get it done as quickly as possible. The UN is a tool of tyrants and must be evicted from America.

Related articles:
United Nations Exploits Pseudo-“Human Rights” to Attack U.S.
UN “Human Rights” Council Now Officially Controlled by Dictators
After Equating Trump With ISIS, UN Freaks Out Over His Victory
Bill to Get U.S. Out of UN Introduced in New Congress
Governments Now Extending “Human Rights” to Rivers
UN Demands “Robust Gun Control” After Orlando Terror
UN: Jail Parents Who Spank Their Children
UN Human Rights Attack on U.K. Ridiculed as “Marxist Diatribe
UN Human Rights Council: A Dictator's Paradise (Video)
UN Whistleblower: UN Gave Names of Dissidents to Communist China
The United Nations: On the Brink of Becoming a World Government
Citing Officials' “Impunity” on Child Sex Abuse, UN Whistleblower Quits
UN Ridiculed for Attacking Poverty and Demanding Tax Hikes in Canada
UN Human Rights Council: Is Washington "Redskins" Appropriate?
U.S. Independence Attacked as Never Before by UN Interdependence