Friday, January 7, 2022

Medicare and Medicaid Mandate arguments. (I will blog for only 30 minutes)

The Principal US Deputy Solicitor General Brian Fletcher presented a brief argument supporting the Secretary's authorities re covered providers for their participation in Medicare and Medicaid.

Justice Thomas asks what else authorizes the Secretary to do this, and the Deputy Solicitor General says the Secretary simply added an additional category.  Thomas elicits the fact this has never been done before. 

Thomas then poses the fact that the vaccine could have negative health consequences.

Roberts asked why CMS, OSHA, certain employers? The DSG waffles. 

Sotomayor asks if this is unprecedented?  The S-G says the costs of the mandate will be (only) 1.3 $billion and the feds would pay much of this.  This is a tiny amount in comparison to the trillions spent yearly on healthcare.

Alito asks if the states had clear notice that this mandate could happen when they signed CMS contracts?  All providers must comply with the Secretary's requirements, even as they change, in the interest of patient health and safety.  

Furthermore, the cited statutes do not authorize the Secretary specifically to order this.  Alito asks where the Secretary's power ends?  It seems the constraint is the requirement for it to benefit patient health and safety.  He then lists many organizations that support it.

Alito says the statute says the Secretary must consult with the states, how do you respond?  The S-G says he does not have to consult before he issues a rule.  Alito said it would be odd to consult afterwards.

Barrett says "This was an omnibus rule" which blew past the text of the 15 different provisions cited.  The S-G says the statutory language is of course what the Court should consider.  Barrett disagrees that all the provisions give the Secretary authority.  The S-G says he is saved by the severability provision which says if one is not useful the others still stand.

Gorsuch says that a statute here prohibits the government from controlling the tenure and employment of healthcare workers at hospitals.  He says that merely by spending federal funds on hospitals you cannot commandeer a state or private entity.  The S-G is having a lot of problems with this, getting nervous.

This is getting interesting, but I have to go see patients.--Meryl


Anonymous said...

Now someone needs to sue OSHA to make them prove the vaccines actually DO "protect workers from viruses" because, as time passes, it's not looking like it does much of anything.

If OSHA can Mandate Vaccines, what else will they be able to Mandate on you? All over weight people mandated to eat Granola Bars only? Per OSHA?

CDC Funded TX Prison Study Reports Little Benefit for Vaccinated.

Anonymous said...

The questions I would like to hear asked.

1) Did you all, the justices all swear an oath to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic?

2) Blacks law definition of a mandate and USC code definition and how does it apply? Gratuitously and voluntary?

3) Where in the constitution do these agencies get the constitutional authority from?

4) Where in the constitution do corporations aka govs get the authority?

5) Do these rules violate the sovereign Unalienable Rights of men and woman living on the land and outside of the DC foreign state?

6) Would it be a violation of the Nuremberg Code for any and all corporations to force people to take experiential jabs?

7) Where in the constitution, are corporations given authority over the sovereign men and woman living outside of DC living on land in the states?

8) When and who gave abc agencies given the power to make law and issue fines?

9) Would businesses acting under color of law as mask police and actual police acting as mask police face liability if individual civil rights are violated due to the proclamation?

10) Does the mask mandate violate due process, separation of powers, any delegation clauses along with state public accommodation anti-discrimination laws?

11) Does the opinion of the court supersede the constitution as the highest law in the land?

12) Where does this end? can corporation's aka govs force people to donate an eye, part of their liver, a kidney, a lung to benefit a gov interest?

13) Would these rules violate the 14th. amendment?

14) Would these rules be in direct conflict with rules and penalties regarding demanding people disclose their private medical information?

15) What would be the penalty for the people pushing the jab, when found to be dangerous and or deadly?

16) Who will be responsible for any and all harm caused by the mRNA injection if they force people to take it?

I am just getting started but you can see why the constitution does not give govs this kind of power.

Anonymous said...

And following on the previous comment: in what universe and by what constitutional authority are employers and government agencies entitled to compel anyone to disclose their medical histories and/or personal religious beliefs?