Getting rid of Obamacare has proved not so easy.
The GOP House majority, won in late 2010, voted dozens of times to get rid of the program, but without Senate support to pile on (much less override a presidential veto), they could vote to repeal every day of the year and still nothing would happen.
Besides, the Supreme Court has ruled that it’s okey-constitutionally-dokey to compel custumers to buy insurance or pay a fine — or a tax that’s not a tax.
And then there was the 2012 presidential election, in which the Romneycare candidate lost to the Obamacare candidate.
But laws imposed by men are not laws of nature. Gravity cannot be annulled; Obamacare sure can.
The New York Times reports that the thinking of “conservative and libertarian theorists” at the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the American Enterprise Institute and elsewhere has informed several lawsuits challenging the Obama Administration’s attempts to unilaterally redraft provisions of the law as passed.
A key point is that the IRS has no authority under Obamacare to award tax breaks or subsidies to persons who buy insurance through the federal exchange rather than a state exchange. Ability to impose penalties in turn depends upon the availability of such subsidies. All this matters because many states have fought Obamacare by refusing to set up state exchanges. Some of these states are among the plaintiffs in the lawsuits.
Meanwhile, Congress is holding hearings on how the Obama Administration has repeatedly amended the Affordable [sic] Care Act despite lacking legislative authority to do so.
Our freedom, wealth and health are too important to surrender to government dictocrats. Thankfully, many advocates of medical freedom remain in the trenches.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
5 replies on “Ending Obamacare”
In 2010, IBM offered the White House to build the Obamacare website for free. Whaddya bet they would have had it running now and would have included security protection for the signups?
But then the Obama’s couldn’t have been shoveling money towards Michelle’s college roommate.
It is becoming apparent that Rep. Pelosi was correct, that the Act had to be passed to determine what was in it, and even she did not know its true content.
I hope that the rule of law and separation of powers prevails, and a constitutional lesson is learned, taught by Oklahoma and the similarly situated plaintiffs.
I am, however, fearful now that the ACA has confused, dislocated and attempted to destroy the free medical insurance and services market, the more likely reaction of the legislative branch will be a panic, quick fix “reform”, converting the current (un)Affordable Care Act into a single payer system. That was, and remains, the ultimate and true goal of the proponents of the Act.
By that the statists will have imposed an involuntary servitude to the government upon 1/6 of the economy which will have many additional detrimental unintended consequences.
Every representative and every senator who voted for this abomination should be defeated in their next primary election, for starters.
“Congress is holding hearings on how the Obama Administration has repeatedly amended the Affordable [sic] Care Act…”
If Congress were serious, it would impeach Obama for multiple violations of the Constitution. Holding hearings accomplishes nothing but is a way for Congresspersons to tell their constituents that they are working to correct the situation.
I can’t say I agree with Jacob that “they [the House] could vote to repeal every day of the year and still nothing would happen.”
While this statement is true, they could simply not vote to fund Obamacare, using the Power of the Purse to eliminate it. Of course Obama/Reid will shut down the government in response, and veto any bill funding the government without funding Obamacare. So what if the media tries to blame it on the Republicans. I’d rather government be shut down (even if only 20% of it) than have Obamacare.
The reality is all the Democrats, and perhaps 75% of the GOP don’t want the Power of the Purse to be used, because it only cuts spending.
I appreciate the efforts to get Obamacare ended. But the GOP voting to fund it (38% of the House GOP and 57% of the Senate GOP) really show they don’t want to fight, and just want to look like they opposed it. Why else would Boehner/Cantor create a bill to abolish Obamacare, followed by a bill to fund it? The reason is obviously to give cover to RINOs who want it, but want to look like they were against it. In other words, to lie to conservative voters.
We need to boot the RINOs. They are a bigger problem than the Democrats.
Subsidies and exemptions are “specific” welfare, not “general”. Plainly unconstitutional.