Health Care Mandate Update
Florida has sued Javier Becerra Sec'y of Dept. of Health and Human Services and CMS
The Florida Complaint challenging the CMS Mandate is a welcome development. It blazes a trail showing this mandate is illegal. Highlights of laws broken by the CMS mandate are:
42. U.S.C. §1395. Prohibition against any Federal interference
Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to authorize any Federal officer or employee to exercise any supervision or control over the practice of medicine or the manner in which medical services are provided, or over the selection, tenure, or compensation of any officer or employee of any institution, agency, or person providing health services; or to exercise any supervision or control over the administration or operation of any such institution, agency, or person.
Why isn’t this obvious to health care upper management? We need them to fight for the integrity of our health care systems but they seem brain dead.
42 U.S.C. §1395z. Consultation with State agencies and other organizations to develop conditions of participation for providers of services
In carrying out his functions, relating to determination of conditions of participation by providers of services, under subsections (e)(9), (f)(4), (j)(15),1 (o)(6), (cc)(2)(I), and 2 (dd)(2), and (mm)(1) of section 1395x of this title, or by ambulatory surgical centers under section 1395k(a)(2)(F)(i) of this title, the Secretary shall consult with appropriate State agencies and recognized national listing or accrediting bodies, and may consult with appropriate local agencies.
CMS changed the conditions of participation to require staff get Covid-19 shots. But it could only do so following consultation. Where was the consultation with State agencies, accrediting bodies, or local health districts? The record is devoid of evidence this occurred.
The Constitution’s Spending Clause :
The Spending Clause empowers Congress to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and the general Welfare of the United States.” Since our nation’s founding, there has been debate over spending power and the meaning of “general welfare.”
Spending tied to conditions can be legal. A well known example is the highway budget. If States want highway funds, they must limit drinking to 21 and over —a nexus with highway safety. However, in 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court in NFIB v. Sebelius found an Affordable Care Act provision to be coercive and illegal when it required states participating in Medicaid to expand the program to adults with incomes up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level. Seven of nine justices, held the threatened loss of Medicaid funds to states that refused to expand their programs rendered the provision unconstitutionally coercive.
Chief Justice Roberts found the large amount of money at stake made this provision a “gun to the head” of states because:
Federal Medicaid funding is between 10-20 percent of state’s revenues;
The expansion “transformed” Medicaid from health care for categories of needy people (elderly; those with disabilities; children) to a universal guarantee of health care for relatively poor; and
States did not anticipate, when they entered Medicaid decades ago, that Congress would condition continued Medicaid participation on such dramatically transformative requirements.
The current situation is similar. Medicare and Medicaid funds account for 60% of most hospital budgets. A mandate to give a leaky dangerous “vaccine” that cannot stop community spread developed for a virus extant in January 2020 but now superseded by a variant — coerces hospitals and health providers in ways they never anticipated when they agreed to take Medicare and Medicaid money.
Along with the interference with the administration of health care and failing to consult with the States, our prediction is this mandate fails. Along with others in the legal profession, we are working hard to limit the damage to the heroes that survived two years of this crisis. Our medical professionals were constantly exposed, developed totally ignored natural immunity, and are now seeing the damaging impact of “vaccination” on those too young and too healthy to need it. When they don’t want to take the shot, we should listen to their reasoning.