The driving force behind the costly effort is to single out—and eliminate—healthcare inequalities between ethnic minorities and their more affluent and educated white counterparts. In fact, an Obamacare initiative to “reduce racial and ethnic health disparities” established half a dozen federal Offices of Minority Health as well as one for each state.

In the last few years the administration has doled out north of $100 million to conquer the issue by funding initiatives that help lower chronic diseases—such as diabetes, cancer and heart disease—“disproportionately seen among poor and minority populations.” This includes a federal task force to “reduce racial and ethnic asthma disparities,” and an innovative state obesity map that reveals blacks, the poor and uneducated are disproportionately obese compared to affluent Caucasians.

Last summer the government spent tens of thousands of dollars to develop a special mobile device application “in different languages and in culturally appropriate contexts” to help “underserved and minority women fight and prevent cancer.” To assure that the app is topnotch, the government offered entrepreneurs money to create it by launching a contest called Reducing Cancer Among Women of Color App Challenge. The winner gets $85,000, second place gets $10,000 and third place $5,000.

This month’s race-based health initiative du jour aims to lower “stroke risk among racial and ethnic minorities in the United States,” according to an announcement that reveals $40 million has been allocated for the cause. Compared to non-Hispanic whites, racial and ethnic minorities such as African-Americans, Hispanics/Latinos, Asian-Americans, and American Indians and Alaska Natives are more likely to experience a stroke and its related disability, according to the announcement from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the nation’s medical research agency.

It’s safe to bet the administration will continue pouring money into these special programs because it has determined that practically all ailments known to man disproportionately affect minorities. To document it the administration for the first time ever created a new section on socioeconomic status in the Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) annual comprehensive report on Americans’ health.

Nearly two dozen pages are dedicated to the special socioeconomic status section, which includes charts and graphs comparing the difference in the healthcare received by whites, Hispanics, blacks and Asians. Practically all ailments are mentioned, including asthma, obesity, mental disorders and dental visits with a breakdown of disparities among ethnic minorities and the uneducated and poverty-stricken.

Everything from depression to edentulism (lack of natural teeth), obesity, cigarette smoking and cancer is more prevalent among the poor, according to the government’s assessment. Even childhood attention deficit disorder hits low-income minorities harder and virtually every chronic known disease strikes them at much greater rates than educated whites. In short, people with higher education and income levels have lower rates of many chronic diseases compared to those with less education and lower income levels, the feds assert.

Compliments of Obamacare, the cash went to the municipal government of Washington D.C., according to a conservative news outlet that cites numbers from the federal agency—Centers for Disease Control (CDC)—that awards the money. The goal, according to the CDC, is to target “approximately 445,000 residents living in the District of Columbia, focusing on racial/ethnic minority, low-income, medically underserved and disabled communities.”

Officially it’s called a federal Community Transformation Grant and the feds are promoting the cash give-away as a worthy investment, under the president’s new healthcare overhaul, in community health. The money is also supposed to help implement environmental and infrastructure improvements to increase physical activity opportunities, reduce weight and tobacco use, improve nutrition and chronic disease outcomes. D.C. got $1.8 million and other cities around the nation have received tens of millions more to implement similar initiatives.  

Among D.C.’s plans for the money is to increase the “availability of fruit and vegetables to employees in their workplaces.” This just happens to coincide with Michelle Obama’s mission to conquer obesity in low-income and minority neighborhoods with government-subsidized farmers markets. In fact, the First Lady even got Congress to pass—and her husband to sign—a $4.5 billion law to accomplish the task.  

D.C.’s government will also spend some of its generous grant to increase “policies and practices to support breastfeeding in health care, community, workplaces, and learning and childcare settings.” Tobacco use will be curbed by increasing smoke-free, multi-unit housing (presumably taxpayer-funded public housing for the poor) and through yet-to-be determined “Tobacco Free Living Innovative Proposals.”

Under Obama the federal government has funded a number of costly programs in a variety of areas—including education, healthcare and nutrition—specifically targeting minorities. Among them is an $8.8 million program to train “underserved” Hispanic students to work for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), a series of cultural and linguistically appropriate healthcare initiatives for minorities and a $36.2 million study to improve minority “housing counseling.”

This may sound absurd since there appears to be no connection between Obama’s socialized healthcare system—officially known as the Affordable Care Act—and the electronic devices that may fall victim to the new government tax. Here is how it could happen; under Obamacare any type of medical equipment—such as surgical tools, bedpans and heart devices—will be slapped with a new 2.3% excise tax.

The tax was built into the Affordable Care Act as a way for the government to collect enough money to provide millions of uninsured with affordable health insurance plans. It’s all part of Obama’s bigger plan to redistribute wealth through a bloated government, though many Democrats believe the medical device tax takes things a bit too far.

In fact, a bipartisan group of U.S. senators introduced legislation a few weeks ago to repeal the medical device tax and a prominent group of Democrat senators quietly asked Senate majority leader Harry Reid to delay implementing the tax because it could negatively impact the industry and its 2 million high-skilled manufacturing jobs. A mainstream newspaper obtained the letter and posted it on its website.

This week a congressional committee reveals that the tax could be worse that previously imagined because it could also apply to electronic devices like smart phones and popular tablets. If so, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would use Obamacare to tax Americans’ smartphones and tablets, according to the panel of Republicans from the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

That’s because the devices are increasingly being used to monitor chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure or health information like diet and fitness. In mid 2011 the FDA proposed regulating mobile medical apps that are used as an accessory to a medical device already regulated by the FDA or transform a mobile communications device into a regulated medical device by using attachments or sensors. If this happens, the new Obamacare tax would apply to these devices.

In a letter to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg lawmakers on the energy committee ask the agency to clarify the uncertainty surrounding mobile medical applications and how they will be regulated. They also request that the FDA reveal any discussions or analysis related to the effects of the medical device tax on smartphones and tablets and how many mobile medical apps have sought FDA approval before entering the market.

It gets better; by the time it’s all said and done—in about four more years according to government estimates—American taxpayers will have been fleeced $6.6 billion! It’s all part of the Obama Administration’s hostile takeover of the nation’s healthcare system. The idea behind this plan is to switch medical records from paper to digital to create a centralized system that supposedly improves the quality of health care.

The overhaul won’t come cheap and the government is offering hospitals and doctors billions to switch to electronic medical records. The money has come largely from President Obama’s fraud-infested $787 billion stimulus which was supposed to jump start the economy and put Americans back to work. Instead the economy is a disaster as the nation suffers through a staggering $16 trillion (and growing) deficit and unemployment is at record highs.

This has not affected the cash flow to government programs, however. In this case the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) is the agency that cuts the checks to healthcare providers that agree to switch to electronic records. So far CMS has doled out $3.6 billion to 74,317 medical providers, but the agency doesn’t bother following up to assure the money is appropriately spent. In fact, CMS fails to verify if providers are meeting the required quality goals, according to a federal audit released this week.

Investigators from the Department of Health and Human Services Inspector General warn in their report that the electronic records program is vulnerable to abuse. Furthermore, they say immediate efforts should be made to strengthen oversight and prevent tax dollars from being wasted. This is not an unreasonable request considering doctors receive up to $44,000 and hospitals a minimum of $ 2 million to switch from paper to digital records.  

Here is the scary response, included in the HHS watchdog report, from the head of the CMS (Marilyn Tavenner) on the idea of requiring healthcare providers to prove they’re meeting quality requirements before they get U.S. tax dollars. It would be burdensome, Tavenner said, and it would “significantly delay payments.” Spoken like at true government bureaucrat!

This isn’t the first time that the Obamacare-driven digital medical record overhaul has come under fire. Last month federal lawmakers questioned the costly experiment, asserting that it’s wasting billions of tax dollars and doing little to improve medical care. In a letter to Obama Health Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, four congressmen who chair various committees say the program “appears to be doing more harm than good.”

As proof their letter includes an excerpt from a mainstream newspaper article that exposes this enraging bit of info; the move to electronic health records may be contributing to billions of dollars in higher costs for Medicare, private insurers and patients by making it easier for hospitals and physicians to bill more for their services, whether or not they provide additional care.       

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton issued the following statement today regarding the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare:

This Supreme Court majority rewrote Obamacare and then upheld its constitutionality. This decision is monstrous and upends the constitutional limits on federal power. That the Chief Justice would join the Court’s liberal block to legislate from the bench is shocking. Instead of calling the law Obamacare, we can fairly call it “Robertscare.”

Justice Kagan’s controversial decision to participate in this case despite unanswered questions about her role in defending Obamacare while working in the Obama administration also taints the High Court’s decision.

The Court’s decision will contribute to the public’s concern that our government is out of control and acting without constitutional authority. The rule of law suffered a stinging blow today.

On February 13, 2012, Judicial Watch filed an amicus curiae brief with the High Court challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare, specifically the “individual mandate.” In its brief Judicial Watch maintained that the “individual mandate” provision of Obamacare, which requires every American citizen to purchase health care insurance or pay a penalty, is unconstitutional – whether considered under Congress’ commerce power or taxing power:

Petitioners are trying to defend a provision in an act passed by Congress that exceeds its enumerated powers. Though Congress enacted this provision under the Commerce Clause, Congress’ power under the clause is not broad enough to compel Americans to engage in commerce by purchasing a particular product. Though Petitioners try to rescue the provision by arguing that it is valid under Congress’ taxing power even if it is invalid under Congress’ commerce power, a provision of an act that is not a tax may not be construed as a tax merely to save it from being declared unconstitutional.

Judicial Watch further argued that if the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of the individual mandate, “it must be willing to hold that Congress’ powers under the Commerce clause are plenary and unlimited, for there remains no principled way to limit Congress’ power if it is stretched as far as Petitioners (the Obama administration) ask.”

Judicial Watch also uncovered documents detailing Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan’s role in Obamacare discussions when she served as President Obama’s Solicitor General.

It’s one of many powerful arguments for opposing the president’s hostile takeover of the nation’s healthcare system. Officially known as the Affordable Care Act, a seldom-mentioned provision of the measure is dedicated to reducing health disparities between minorities and whites. More than $100 million has already been dedicated to the initiative to help lower chronic diseases “disproportionately seen among poor and minority populations.”

To carry out the mission, Obamacare established half a dozen federal Offices of Minority Health as well as one for each state. The federal minority offices are embedded in the following agencies; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ); the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS); the Food and Drug Administration (FDA); the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA); and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). 

Each federal office will coordinate activities and programs that improve the health of racial and ethnic minority populations. For instance the CDC’s Office of Minority Health and Health Equity will “advance the science and practice of health equity” and “collaborate with national and global partners to promote the reduction of health inequalities.” The FDA’s branch will “promote effective communication” among “underserved, vulnerable populations” and strengthen research associated with “race and ethnicity.”  

All 50 state “health equity” branches will work to “empower people” and “mobilize community partnerships” to end disparities. They will form a movement, a call to action if you will, at the regional, state, county and city level to achieve health equity. This includes encouraging elementary and high school students to organize special health equity events on campuses across the nation.  

In the name of this cause, the Obama Administration has coined April National Minority Health Month because “health equity can’t wait.” The idea is to raise awareness of the health disparities that continue to affect racial and ethnic minorities, according to a government press release, and to celebrate the opportunities of Obamacare’s “groundbreaking policies to reduce those health disparities.” 

Despite the progress our nation has made over the past 50 years, racial and ethnic minorities still lag behind the general population on many health fronts, the announcement says.  Minorities are less likely to get the preventive care they need to stay healthy, more likely to suffer from serious illnesses, such as diabetes, heart disease and colon cancer, and they are less likely to have access to quality health care.

Emails previously obtained by Judicial Watch suggest that, during Justice Kagan’s tenure as Solicitor General, the Office of the Solicitor General had been more involved in the legal defense of the PPACA than had previously been disclosed.  Late last year, another set of records were produced that included an email showing what appeared to be then-Solicitor General Kagan’s excitement and support for the passage of the PPACA.

In the letter, Mr. Fitton notes, “The failure of the Justice department to produce requested records in a timely manner, the dribbling out of requested records over time, the redaction and withholding of other records, and the refusal to respond to requests for records and information from several members of Congress have contributed to the substantial impression that additional details about your tenure as Solicitor General and the enactment and subsequent legal defense of the PPACA are being withheld from the American people.  However, [as] the Court ultimately rules on the various legal challenges to the PPACA, it would be extraordinarily unfortunate if the Court’s decision were overshadowed by controversy over your participation in the matter.  It would leave a cloud hanging over the Court’s decision and could undermine public confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the Court as an institution.”

The letter states, “Judicial Watch is not calling on you to recuse yourself from the PPACA litigation at this time, just as Judicial Watch did not call on Justice Scalia to recuse himself from the litigation involving the National Energy Policy Development Group (‘NEPDG’) – to which Judicial Watch was a party – in 2004.  When a controversy arose during the course of the NEPDG litigation over whether Justice Scalia should recuse himself from that matter, Justice Scalia issued an opinion stating:  ‘The decision whether a judge’s impartiality can ‘reasonably be questioned’ is to be made in light of the facts as they existed, and not as they were surmised or reported.”  Justice Scalia then provided a comprehensive recitation of the facts ‘as they existed,’ not as they were ‘surmised or reported,’ and an articulation of the reasoning behind his decision not to recuse himself.”

Mr. Fitton further notes, “During your confirmation process, you wrote that you would ‘consider carefully the recusal practices of current and past Justices’ as well as consult with your colleagues if questions about recusal in particular cases arose.   Judicial Watch believes that it would be of substantial benefit to the Court’s consideration of the legal challenges to the PPACA if, like Justice Scalia in the NEPDG matter, you were to address the facts surrounding your tenure as Solicitor General and the enactment and subsequent legal defense of the PPACA as they ‘existed,’ not as they are being ‘surmised or reported,’ as well as provide an articulation of your reasoning behind any decision regarding recusal.”

Justice Kagan has said that she was not “substantially” involved in the DOJ discussions regarding Obamacare’s constitutional or litigation issues.  The White House, despite repeated inquiries, has refused to confirm to Judicial Watch that Justice Kagan was “walled off” from Obamacare defense discussions while at the Department of Justice (DOJ).

The Judicial Watch letter also references is the lack of cooperation by the DOJ in responding to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests previously submitted by Judicial Watch for records pertaining to Justice Kagan and the PPACA.

On February 21, 2012, Judicial Watch filed another FOIA lawsuit against the DOJ, seeking access to calendars, schedules, and phone logs for Justice Kagan and her deputies inside the Solicitor General’s office.

“We hope that Justice Kagan will give serious consideration to addressing this recusal controversy, so as to provide greater transparency and increase public confidence in the impartiality and integrity of the Supreme Court,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

On February 13, 2012, Judicial Watch filed an amicus curiae brief with the High Court challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare, specifically the “individual mandate.” On Monday, March 26, the Supreme Court will begin hearing oral argument on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as “Obamacare.” Brought against the Obama administration by 26 states and other parties, the case Florida v. Dept. of Health & Human Services raises questions about the “individual mandate” provision of Obamacare, which would require every American citizen to purchase health care insurance or pay a penalty.  Judicial Watch’s panel will feature leading experts on the legal and policy controversies around Obamacare.

Date:               Thursday, March 22

Time:              9:30 am -11:00 am ET

*Location:      Judicial Watch

Main Conference Room

425 Third Street SW

Washington, DC 20024

Confirmed Panelists:

Bill McCollum

Former Attorney General, Florida

Alan Wilson

Attorney General, South Carolina

Betsy McCaughey

Author of The Obama Health Law: What It Says and How to Overturn It, Former Lieutenant Governor, New York

Lee A. Casey

Partner, Baker Hostetler

Moderator: 

Tom Fitton

President, Judicial Watch

 *(near NASA headquarters, one block from Southwest Federal Center Metro Station)

A mult box will be available.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch, the organization that investigates and fights government corruption, announced today that it filed a lawsuit against the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) seeking access to records related to U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Elena Kagan’s role in Obamacare discussions while she served as President Obama’s Solicitor General (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:12 –cv-00277)).

Previous documents uncovered by Judicial Watch have raised concerns about whether Justice Kagan should recuse herself from considering the Obamacare litigation when it goes before the High Court in March 2012.

Pursuant to its original Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted to the DOJ’s Office of Information Policy and the Office of Solicitor General on December 7, 2011, Judicial Watch seeks access to the following information to help to determine if Justice Kagan and her top deputies participated in Obamacare meetings and phone calls:

All calendars, schedules, phone logs and agenda for each of the following individuals: (1) Elena Kagan; (2) Neal Katyal; (3) Edwin Kneedler; (4) Malcolm Stewart; and (5) Michael Dreeben.

Neal Katyal, Edwin Kneedler, Malcolm Stewart and Michael Dreeben all served as Deputy Solicitors General under Kagan. The time frame for this request is September 1, 2009, through August 31, 2010.

The Obama administration was required by law to respond to the FOIA request by January 25, 2012.  However, to date, the Obama administration has neither released any records, nor provided an explanation as to why records should be withheld, nor given a date when a response to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request will be forthcoming.

Justice Kagan has said that she was not “substantially” involved in the DOJ discussions regarding Obamacare’s constitutional or litigation issues. The White House, despite repeated inquiries, has refused to confirm to Judicial Watch that Justice Kagan was “walled off” from Obamacare defense discussions while at the DOJ.

Emails previously obtained by Judicial Watch suggest Kagan and staff from her Solicitor General’s office may have participated in discussions pertaining to the legal defense of Obamacare. Other records show then-Solicitor General Kagan commenting excitedly on the passage of Obamacare.  (Judicial Watch obtained the documents pursuant to a FOIA lawsuit filed on February 24, 2011. This lawsuit had been consolidated with a similar FOIA lawsuit first filed against the DOJ by the Media Research Center.)

Responding to inquiries from Congress for records detailing Justice Kagan’s role in Obamacare discussions, Attorney General Eric Holder said in December 2011 that he has “separation of powers concerns” about releasing them, according to Politico.

“This is no time for the Obama administration to stonewall and obfuscate. We hope the court will force the Obama administration to respond to our request in a manner consistent with federal law,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The American people deserve to know how deeply involved Elena Kagan and her top deputies were in shaping the Obama administration’s legal defense of Obamacare.  The integrity of the courts requires a full airing of those facts before she participates in ruling on a matter she may have helped prepare for litigation.  There is more information at the Justice Department but clearly Eric Holder intends to run out the clock.”

On February 13, 2012, Judicial Watch filed an amicus curiae brief with the United States Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare, specifically the “individual mandate.” The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for the Obamacare case on March 26, 27, and 28, 2012.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch, the organization that investigates and fights government corruption, announced today that it filed an amicus curiae brief on February 13, 2012, with the United States Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare (United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al., State of Florida, et al. (No. 11-398)). The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for the Obamacare case on March 26, 27 and 28, 2012.

With its amicus curiae brief Judicial Watch maintains that the “individual mandate” provision of Obamacare, which requires every American citizen to purchase health care insurance or pay a penalty, is unconstitutional, whether considered under Congress’ commerce power or taxing power:

Petitioners are trying to defend a provision in an act passed by Congress that exceeds its enumerated powers. Though Congress enacted this provision under the Commerce Clause, Congress’ power under the clause is not broad enough to compel Americans to engage in commerce by purchasing a particular product. Though Petitioners try to rescue the provision by arguing that it is valid under Congress’ taxing power even if it is invalid under Congress’ commerce power, a provision of an act that is not a tax may not be construed as a tax merely to save it from being declared unconstitutional.

Judicial Watch further argues that if the Supreme Court affirms the constitutionality of the so-called individual mandate, “it must be willing to hold that Congress’ powers under the Commerce clause are plenary and unlimited, for there remains no principled way to limit Congress’ power if it is stretched as far as Petitioners (the Obama administration) ask.”

The Judicial Watch amicus was filed in support of a challenge to Obamacare by Florida and 25 other states.

Demonstrating the importance of the legal battle over Obamacare, the Supreme Court will hear five-and-a-half hours of oral argument, a rare allotment of time in the court’s modern era. The Supreme Court’s scrutiny will focus on the constitutionality of the Obamacare individual mandate. The court will also consider whether other components of Obamacare could take effect even if the individual mandate is ruled unconstitutional, among other issues.

In a December 14, 2010, editorial published in The Washington Post Attorney General Eric Holder and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius argued that the individual mandate is essential to Obamacare: “Without an individual responsibility provision (or mandate), controlling costs and ending discrimination against people with preexisting conditions doesn’t work.”

“The President’s socialist healthcare overhaul is an affront to the U.S. Constitution’s provisions for limited government,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The time has come for the U.S. Supreme Court to put an end to Obamacare once and for all.”