Nearly two years ago, before a joint session of Congress, President Obama promised that his law would not benefit illegal aliens. He stated: “The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”  In his now famous response, Congressman Joe Wilson stood up for every American and responded, "You Lie!"

It turns out that Congressman Wilson was right - the President did lie.  According to CNS News, grant money from ObamaCare is flowing to community health clinics and at least $8.5 million taxpayer dollars will be steered towards programs to provide health care to migrant farm workers which include a large share of illegal aliens.  A spokeswoman for HHS stated that the clinics would not check the immigration status of those seeking care which means ObamaCare will be directly providing free health care to many illegal aliens. Judy Andrews, the HHS spokesperson stated: “The Program’s authorizing statute does not affirmatively address immigration status,” and continued, “Rather, it simply states that health centers are required to provide primary health care to all residents of the health center's service area without regard for ability to pay.”

Hat tip to Karl Filippini of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) for his blog posting earlier today.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC. 

Sally Pipes writes for Forbes about the perils of a single payer system which includes government prices controls.  While ObamaCare moves the U.S. rapidly in that direction and Massachusetts and Vermont are adopting similar policies, Canada is moving in the opposite direction. 

According to Pipes, the father of socialized medicine in Quebec has embraced a return to the free market saying: “We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice.”  Pipes concludes here article by saying: "Here in America, federal and state officials have promised to lower health care costs — and right quick. But forcibly regulating prices won’t do the trick. Americans — and Vermonters in particular — should hope that these experiments in health care reform are mercifully short."

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC.  

At 9:30 AM, EST, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals is set to hear an appeal of the decision of Judge Roger Vinson in which he ruled in favor of Florida and dozens of other states that the individual mandate was unconstitutional and, as a result, struck down all of ObamaCare.  Updates to follow!

Update 1:  Avik Roy writes that according to Cato's Ilya Shapiro, Neal Katyal (the acting Solicitor General who is arguing for the constitutionality of the mandate) "spent most of the hearing on the ropes, with the judicial panel extremely cautious not to extend federal power beyond its present outer limits."

Update 2:  LA Times writes, "After nearly three hours of argument Wednesday, the three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals seemed prepared to declare at least part of last year's law unconstitutional."

Update 3: LA Times also writes that for the first time a court seems sympathetic to the argument by the states that they federal government has coerced and/or commandeered them with respect to the Medicaid expansion.  The paper wrote: "The Medicaid claim has not won any support from other federal judges, but [Chief Judge Joel] Dubina said the states had 'a pretty strong argument' they were being forced to pay millions of dollars more to enroll low-income residents."

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC.  

Kevin Williamson at National Review Online writes about HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius' efforts to implement price controls on insurance premiums.  Despite the fact that ObamaCare will impose a series of costly mandates on insurers but Sibelius will cap premium increases.  These factors will drive insurers out of the marketplace, creating fewer consumers choices, leading to scarcity and eventually, in the absence of market alternatives, a public option (as the only option).  

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC.  

One of the "cost saving" measures contained in ObamaCare are the provisions related to Accountable Care Organizations (ACO) which will create an HMO like program in Medicare.  Seniors will not have a choice if they are assigned to an ACO but will be assigned based on their previous year's use of the health care system.  Critics have noted that the ACO regulations issued by the Obama Administration earlier this year will cause doctors to violate the Hippocratic Oath by putting cost containment above patient care (this will occur because doctors who are part of an ACO will get paid based on costing savings).

The Heritage Foundation has issued a new document detailing some of the specific problems of the ACO regulations, among these problems:  "The only way ACOs can work to reduce costs is to become a more integrated and closed network of providers who follow data-driven protocols for care. That means they can’t let their beneficiaries go to see just any specialist. The ACO needs patients to see only the ACO’s preferred list of specialists. But that will be nearly impossible to enforce if beneficiaries never agreed to become part of the managed care environment of an ACO in the first place.”

This is a big price for seniors to pay when the ACOs are likely to save 0.05% (yes, 5/100ths of 1%) of all anticipated Medicare spending during the first three years of the ACO program.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC.  

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, and Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI), Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, are demanding the HHS provide far greater information to the public about the use of the waiver process.  They note the lack of transparency and communication to the business community about how to apply for a waiver and the refusal of the Obama Administration to disclose which companies have been denied a waiver.

The letter from Camp and Hatch can be found: here.     

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC.  

On May 18, 2011, the Federal government filed its reply brief in its appeal of the decision of the Florida lawsuit in which Judge Roger Vinson ruled ObamaCare and the individual mandate were unconstitutional.  (For previous AHEC analysis about the Florida lawsuit, go here, here, and here).

Notable from this latest brief are the following:

• DOJ is now calling the individual mandate the "minimum coverage provision."  It seems the American people know what the individual mandate is and they have rejected it so that the government has changed its rhetoric to avoid visceral public reaction.
• DOJ says that attempts to strike down the individual mandate - which for the first time represents an effort by the government to force people to engage in commerce so that individual conduct can be regulated - is radical.  Note that the power grab by the government isn't radical, the effort to limit government power is radical.
• DOJ continues to put forward the completely debunked myth that the uninsured results in "$43 billion" in cost shifting. Continuing to put this argument forward - when it is known to be false - violates the duty of attorneys under the professional rules of conduct.

In an absolute abuse of power, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sibelius sent a letter to the 83 year old CEO of drug maker Forest Labs telling him to quit his job or HHS would invoke rarely used federal power to have Medicare, Medicaid and the VA buy drugs from his company.

The Wall Street Journal wrote that this move "looks more like the Administration's latest bid to intimidate the health-care industry into doing its bidding on prices, regulations and political support for ObamaCare. This is the same agency that has threatened insurers with exclusion from new state-run health exchanges if they raise their premiums more than Mrs. Sebelius wants, or if they spread what she deems to be 'misinformation' about the President's health bill."

Peter Pitts, a former Food and Drug Administration official who now runs the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, stated that this move by Sibelius "reinforces everybody's worst fears—that this Administration won't do business with anybody that doesn't completely agree with its policy initiatives. Not only will it refuse to even have the argument, it will actively destroy these people."

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC. 

As the parties in Washington continue to debate spending cuts, the Obama Administration has indicated the federal government would continue to implement much of ObamaCare if the parties cannot come to terms and a shutdown occurs.

An official with HHS has said that, “If it's funded by mandatory spending in the Affordable Care Act, implementation can continue.”  By contrast, the Obama Administration has indicated that American soldiers, including those currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, would not get paid and would not receive combat pay during the shutdown.  This prompted House Republicans to pass legislation to avert a disruption in pay for American soldiers. Senate Democrats have indicated they will not take up the House bill (which would strip them of significant leverage) effectively holding troop pay hostage so that the Democrats can continue to protect Planned Parenthood funding.

Treating implementation of political legislation, like ObamaCare, and funding for political friends, like Planned Parenthood, while treating troop pay as "non-essential" is completely immoral.  Our troops have families and if a soldier's spouse is unable to pay the rent, the utilities or buy food, that soldier is going to be distracted about those worries back home.  This is an unnecessary distraction for our troops and it risks lives.  Senate Democrats should be ashamed that they are willing to play politics with soldiers' lives like they have.

According to The Hill, an official from the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) has indicated if ObamaCare works as it was designed to - employers will dump people people into the exchanges.  Joel Ario of DHS said: “If it plays out the exchanges work pretty well, then the employer can say ‘This is a great thing. I can now dump my people into the exchange and it would be good for them, good for me.'”  This is further evidence that the President's repeated promise "if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan," is nothing more than a myth.

Ario also made another statement that every state should take note of - that the exchanges are highly speculative and may never develop.  Ario said: "we may wind up with an employer-based system for a long time because exchanges may not develop."  AHEC has pushed states to forego establishing ObamaCare exchanges.  This skepticism that exchanges may not work comes from one of the principals in charge of developing  of the exchanges.  Despite this, HHS continues to push states to spend scarce budget resources to implement ObamaCare.