Originally posted at FreedomWorks.org.
Republicans are preparing their course of action as they await the Supreme Court’s highly-anticipated ruling on the constitutionality of ObamaCare. The disastrous health care overhaul bill should be declared unconstitutional, but unfortunately, not all Republicans want it to be gutted in its entirety. Some prominent Republicans are pledging to preserve the so-called most “popular” provisions even if the monstrous law is overturned.
There is a growing number of Republicans vowing to keep the “slacker mandate” in place, forcing insurance companies to provide coverage for the children of customers up until such “children” reach age 26. Speaking as a young adult under this age threshold, it is insulting that the federal government treats people in their mid-20s as children.
Not only do some Republicans wish to keep the slacker mandate, but they think it doesn’t go far enough. Republican Congressman Steve Stivers wants to one-up Obama by expanding the slacker mandate to cover “kids” up to age 31. Come on, now.
There is nothing in ObamaCare that is worth saving. Every single provision in the massive 2,801 page bill infringes on the liberty of all Americans. The entire law should be thrown out—no exceptions. ObamaCare should go down in the history books as a big mistake that will never be repeated.
Politicians in both parties want to turn the United States into a paternalistic society. But the government’s role should not be to take of people from cradle to grave. Rather than actually fixing existing problems, the government only creates new problems.
The under-26 coverage mandate has unintended consequences written all over it. Thankfully, Senator Jim DeMint has spoken out against preserving the slacker mandate. On his blog, he comments how the mandate would hurt economic growth:
The under-26 mandate could have a negative impact on jobs and the economy, in two respects. First, to the extent that businesses are forced to absorb the billions of dollars in costs associated with the mandate, they would prove less eager to take on additional workers, or increase hours for existing workers. Second, numerous studies have illustrated that extended unemployment benefits tend to lengthen the average duration of unemployment, and increase the unemployment rate, by discouraging individuals from looking for work…For similar reasons, some would argue that the under-26 mandate likewise provides financial incentives that discourage work, thereby increasing unemployment.
He also writes that the mandate will lead to a spike in health insurance premiums:
Multiple studies have suggested that every 1% increase in premiums increases the number of uninsured by approximately 200,000-300,000 individuals nationwide. With the under-26 mandate raising premiums by at least 1%, and potentially much more for some plans, it is reasonable to conclude that hundreds of thousands of individuals have lost coverage –because they were priced out of the individual market, or because their employers decided to stop offering coverage — as a result of the new requirements.
More Republicans need to grow a spine and pledge to get rid of ObamaCare– all of it. Good riddance.
Originally posted at FreedomWorks.org.
President Obama believes that health care is a right for every American. This is a perversion of the Founding Fathers’ idea of rights. There is an abundance of problems associated with ObamaCare but not enough attention has been paid to the dangerous philosophy behind the law. The underlying problem with ObamaCare is that too many Americans now see health care as a human right rather than a good.
The Declaration of Independence states that we have an unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That doesn’t mean that other people should be forced to sustain our life or make us happy. Many people have a fundamental misunderstanding of the negative rights listed in the founding document. A negative right is a right to not have something done to us. The right to not be killed, the right to not have our property confiscated and the right to not have our speech punished are negative rights.
These legitimate rights do not place obligations on anyone except to not infringe on the rights of others. Otherwise, people are free to do as they please.
Progressives have invented so-called positive rights that are listed nowhere in our founding documents. A positive right is a right to something such as health care, housing, and clothing. The United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights claims that everyone has a right to health care. Of course, there’s no such thing as free health care. The government has no money of its own which means that it cannot “give” anyone health care without first taking away something from someone else.
There is a big difference between a need and a right. Health care is a basic need that everyone is free to pursue. This means that the government cannot infringe on our right to pursue health care but no one owes us health care. Health care is a good just like food, clothing, and shelter.
Positive rights contradict the very notion of rights. The so-called right to health care infringes on negative rights by imposing forceful obligations on taxpayers and health care providers. What about the right of the taxpayer to keep the fruit of his own labor? Should a doctor ultimately decide who he treats—or should he be forced to treat everyone whether he likes it or not? To say that we have the right to someone else’s time and services takes us back down a dark path in American history.
A right is not something someone gives you- it’s something that no one can take away.
Those who reject the idea that health care is a right are not dismissing the importance of health care. Quite the opposite is true. Health care is too important to be left to the incompetent federal government. Due to a lack of proper incentives, government generally destroys everything they touch. The government has never been able to run anything more efficiently than the for-profit private sector.
Anti-ObamaCare activists are often accused of being selfish, greedy people. That isn’t the reality. ObamaCare was passed under the guise of compassion. But as the late economist Murray Rothbard said, “it is easy to be conspicuously ‘compassionate’ if others are being forced to pay the cost.” There is nothing virtuous about spending other people’s money without their consent, no matter how well-intentioned the cause. Where’s the compassion for taxpayers—who are forced to foot the bill?
Theft is seen as immoral in practically every society on earth. Most of us would never dream of stealing money from a neighbor to give to someone less fortunate. Why then do some people demand that the government do it for them? Private charities that run on voluntary donations are the best way of helping the poor obtain health care, not government welfare that relies on force and coercion.
President Obama seems to believe that he can simply repeal the economic law of scarcity. There will never be enough of anything to satisfy all human wants. People can complain about the alleged unfairness of reality, but the fact is that health care will always be a scarce good. No laws can change that fact.
Bad ideas have bad consequences. The idea that health care is a right has led to more government involvement in health care. Government now pays for more than 50 percent of all health care costs in the United States. In order to stop government control and increase freedom, Americans must reject the idea of so-called positive rights. Health care is a valuable good that would be better left to the free market.
New video is up!
Originally posted at FreedomWorks.org.
Nearly two years after ObamaCare was signed into law, we are still finding out what was really in the 2,801 page bill. Many are shocked to find out that the intrusive law contains a provision that forces all employers to provide “free” birth control to all female employees by August 2013. Of course, there’s no such thing as a free lunch or free contraception in this instance. Most conservative bloggers have primarily focused on how the birth control requirement violates freedom of religion but it’s important to examine the mandate from an economic standpoint as well.
All of us should remember the old adage that goes “if one can frame the debate, one wins the debate.” Without fully realizing it, libertarians and fiscal conservatives all too often allow the left to frame the debate. The left has framed the birth control mandate debate as a battle between pro- and anti-birth control advocates. Leftist political pundit Rachel Maddow has claimed that the GOP is declaring a “war on birth control.” But that is entirely misleading; the real debate is between individual rights vs. government force.
Those opposed to the mandate are not necessarily against birth control. Some are but many are not. The left often accuses libertarians and fiscal conservatives of being opposed to a certain good or service just because we do not want it provided or mandated by the government. This intellectually dishonest debate tactic has been used for centuries in attempts to discredit free market supporters.
As Frédéric Bastiat wrote in his timeless book The Law, “socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”
These accusations are far from the truth. True free market supporters believe that all economic activity should be voluntary for everyone. This means that individuals should be free to buy, sell and produce whatever good they desire without government coercion. Forcing employers to provide “free” birth control coverage violates the principles of a free and peaceful society. No one would be legally forced to provide or buy a product that offends their personal beliefs and values in a pure free market economy.
The birth control mandate debate has centered around religious freedom but its likely unintended economic consequences should not be ignored. The mandate has moral hazard written all over it. Moral hazard occurs when people change their behavior when they are insulated from the real cost of their actions. Women are less likely to carefully consider their birth control options if they are getting it for “free.” As economist Peter Schiff says, “when women are buying their own birth control, they are shopping around. The price is a consideration. When they get it for ‘free’, price is no consideration.” Women will be more inclined to take the most expensive birth control option regardless if it makes the most sense.
This means that the mandate will ultimately increase the price of contraception. Peter Schiff further explains that “the problem is when you get something for free, behavior changes. People use things a lot more when they are free and you drive up the cost.” The economic reality is that there is a cost to everything. No matter how well-intentioned government legislation may be, it simply cannot repeal the law of scarcity. Birth control will never be free.
Insurance company Blue Cross has unofficially announced that it would cost $2.8 billion to cover contraception. This cost will eventually be passed onto all consumers in the form of higher insurance premiums. It reminds me of the popular P.J. O’Rourke quote, “if you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it cost when it’s free.” Just replace “health care” with “birth control” in that quote.
Another unintended consequence associated with the birth control mandate is that it could lead to gender discrimination in the hiring process. It will cost employers more money to hire women since they are forced to provide them with contraceptive coverage. Employers are not required to provide men with additional coverage. The cost of employing a woman will increase whether she wants birth control or not. The supposedly well-intentioned law will actually end up hurting women.
The birth control mandate not only violates freedom of religion but it will drive up the price of contraception and may lead to female discrimination. This is just one more reason why we need to get the government out of health care in order to allow the free market to flourish.
Please check out the Peter Schiff video on the birth control mandate below:
After several federal judges have declared ObamaCare unconstitutional, the Supreme Court has finally decided that it will hear challenges to the health care overhaul law. This could be one of the most closely watched and politically charged Supreme Court case in the past few decades. While I hope that the nation’s highest court makes the correct decision regarding ObamaCare, we shouldn’t automatically trust the justices to uphold the Constitution.
We all know that the Constitution grants very few powers to the federal government. Only about thirty enumerated powers are listed throughout the entire document. Our founding document clearly prohibits the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase a product simply because they exist. Almost everything that Congress does is not within bounds of the Constitution yet the Supreme Court rarely ever strikes down a law as unconstitutional. Between the years 1937 to 1995, the Supreme Court did not declare one single law unconstitutional according to the Tenth Amendment Center. This is exactly what Thomas Jefferson feared.
Jefferson warned that if the federal government has a monopoly on determining the extent of its own powers, these powers would continue to grow regardless of separation of powers. This is why James Madison declared that states were “duty bound to resist” any federal law that violated the Constitution. A majority of the states have pushed back against the health care overhaul law. The recent passage of Issue 3 also known as the Ohio Healthcare Freedom Amendment is a win for the states against federal abuse.
The main point is just because ObamaCare is unconstitutional doesn’t mean the Supreme Court will rule it so. Some justices more than others have shown that they are not interested in upholding our founding document. They wrongly see it as a “living document” that can be interpreted as they please based on the political whims of the day. Their dangerous philosophy has essentially rendered the Constitution pointless. As historian Kevin Gutzman says, “those who give us a living Constitution are actually giving us a dead Constitution, since such a thing is completely unable to protect us from the encroachments of government power.”
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan made it clear that she sees almost no limits to federal power in her confirmation hearing last summer. She was even unable to answer a question on whether it is constitutional for the federal government to force citizens to eat three vegetables and three fruits every day. Knowing what we are up against, is there anything we can do to help ensure that the Supreme Court makes the right decision? I would say that the best thing we can do is to call on Justice Elena Kagan recuse herself—abstain from participating from the case—due to a conflict of interest.
Elena Kagan as Solicitor General for the Obama administration claims she was present at “at least one” meeting regarding strategy for the defense of ObamaCare. The Judicial Crisis Network has made the case that her involvement is much more substantial than she is admitting. Emails obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act reveal that she cheered on the passage of ObamaCare in a number of emails. On March 21, 2010, an email was exchanged between Kagan and then-Senior Counselor for Access Justice Laurence Tribe. Kagan writes “I hear they have the votes!! Simply amazing…” and Tribe responds “So healthcare is basically done! Remarkable.”
Elena Kagan should recuse herself from the case as matter of integrity. She has recused herself from 29 of 82 Supreme Court cases because of her previous work as Solicitor General. The ObamaCare case should be no exception. Section 455 of Title 28 of the United States Code (the Judicial Code) states that “any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Now, I’m not a lawyer, but I believe that calling the passage of ObamaCare “simply amazing” and using double exclamation points implies a bit (okay, a lot) of partiality.
Let’s hope that the Supreme Court actually stands up for the original intent of the Constitution. Justice Elena Kagan is not a defender of our constitutional rights; she is a partisan cheerleader for ObamaCare. Regardless of what the Supreme Court happens to rule next June, ObamaCare is a clear violation of the Constitution and should be immediately repealed for the sake of our health care freedom.
Originally posted at FreedomWorks.org.
The “pesky” law of unintended consequences strikes again. Do you remember when President Obama said “if you like your health care plan, you can keep it”? Just as we expected, ObamaCare will not live up to its grand promises. According to a recent National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) report, one in eight small businesses have had or expect to have their health insurance plans terminated since the passage of ObamaCare in March 2010. This is likely just the tip of the iceberg since the 2,801-page health care takeover law will not be fully implemented until 2014.
The unintended consequences of ObamaCare keep rolling in. Insurance prices are skyrocketing, major health insurers have stopped offering child-only policies and we may soon be facing a huge doctor shortage. It comes as no big surprise that health care law will end up costing more than originally thought. A new report from Cornell economist Richard Burkhauser and his colleagues warns that ObamaCare could cost at least $50 billion more per year than previous Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates.
Government has an extensive history of under-calculating the long-term cost of legislation. For example, in 1967, House Ways and Means predicted that Medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990. The actual spending in 1990 was $110 billion. Medicare now costs taxpayers over $314 billion annually. In the case of Medicare, the government estimate was off by over 816 percent. How wrong was the CBO on the cost of ObamaCare? I’d rather not find out.
Many politicians seem to believe that they can repeal the laws of economics. As economist Thomas Sowell says, “the first lesson of economics is scarcity: there is never enough of anything to fully satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.” Most government policies actually worsen the exact same problem they were supposedly trying to cure. As Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) states “free market economics teaches that for every government action to solve an economic problem, two new ones are created.” It’s a never-ending cycle of politicians passing bad laws to “fix” problems that were created by government in the first place.
While there are an abundance of problems associated with ObamaCare, perhaps the most troubling is the philosophical problem. Most politicians –and unfortunately many Americans—believe that health care is a right. This is a perversion of the idea of rights. As the Declaration of Independence states, Americans have the unalienable right to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” Note that none of these things require anything of anybody else.
Health care does require something from someone else. It either requires time from a doctor or nurse or money from someone to pay for such services. The government has no wealth of its own. Every dime that the government redistributes was first forcibly taken away from a taxpayer. Politicians like to consider themselves “compassionate” for supporting wealth redistribution plans such as ObamaCare. But spending other people’s money is not compassionate. As Austrian economist Murray Rothbard said, “it is easy to be conspicuously ‘compassionate’ if others are being forced to pay the cost.”
We are not entitled to health care. Economics professor Walter Williams writes that “true rights, such as those in our Constitution, or those considered to be natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people. That means exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another… For Congress to guarantee a right to health care, or any other good or service, whether a person can afford it or not, it must diminish someone else’s rights, namely their rights to their earnings.” Where’s the compassion for taxpayers—who are forced to foot the bill?
Of course, most individuals who oppose ObamaCare are not “evil” as some supporters have claimed. We are not insensitive to the poor and needy. In fact, conservatives are more likely to donate to charities than liberals (no statistics found on libertarians). Arthur Brooks, author of the book Who Really Cares, says that “you find that people who believe it’s the government’s job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away.” Genuine compassion is when you reach into your own pockets to help out the less fortunate. Reaching into other people’s pockets and forcing them to pay for compulsory government programs is false philanthropy and should not be considered noble.
We must repeal ObamaCare and restore a free market in healthcare. No matter how well-intentioned government legislation may be, it simply cannot repeal the law of scarcity. We can complain about the alleged unfairness of reality, but the fact is that medical care will always be a scarce good. Government meddling in the health care market will only lead to ugly unintended consequences. We instead should seek to get the government out of the way and let the free market function for once.
Originally posted at FreedomWorks.org.
Our Founding Fathers set out to create the freest nation known to man. These brave men rejected the tyrannical rule of King George III by signing the Declaration of Independence. Since these founding days, America has had a tradition of anti-government skepticism. The Founders later wrote the Bill of Rights which lists our natural rights in order to set limitations on the power of the United States federal government. They ultimately envisioned a limited constitutional republic that respects individual rights.
America was founded on the principle of federalism. The so-called anti-federalists who pushed for a Bill of Rights strongly believed in a decentralized government where power was divided between federal and state governments. The tenth amendment clearly reads, “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This simply means that any issue not found in the U.S. Constitution should be left up to individual states to decide. Truth is that the federal government only has about thirty enumerated powers delegated to it in the Constitution.
Nearly 250 years later, the United States has gone grossly astray from the Founding Father’s vision. The federal government is involved in nearly every aspect of our daily lives from what foods we put into our bodies to what we’re allowed to watch on television. We have elected officials in Washington such as Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.) who claims that “the federal government can do most anything in this country.” Even though former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) took an oath to defend the Constitution, she asked a reporter if he was serious when he asked where specifically the Constitution grants Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate.
The reality is Congress violates the Constitution virtually every day while in session. Both parties are to blame. Many states are fed up and are fighting back against unconstitutional federal laws such as ObamaCare. With a Democratic-controlled Senate and President Obama still in the White House, it will prove an arduous task to get ObamaCare repealed through congressional action in Washington, D.C. anytime soon. As it currently stands, a total of 27 states have filed suit against ObamaCare. Thus far, two federal judges have upheld ObamaCare’s individual mandate to purchase health insurance while two others have ruled it unconstitutional. The individual health mandate is clearly unconstitutional. Just as the anti-federalists feared, many people have misinterpreted the commerce clause in the Constitution to justify expansion of federal power at the expense of the states. The original intent of the commerce clause was to promote trade and exchange between states. It was surely never meant to force individuals to buy health insurance simply because they exist.
It’s promising that the number of state lawsuits to overturn ObamaCare is increasing. The Supreme Court recently rejected Virginia’s attorney general Ken Cuccinelli request for an expedited review of his challenge to ObamaCare. It’s difficult to predict what the federal justices would ultimately rule if ObamaCare eventually made its way to the Supreme Court. Historian and author of Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, Dr. Tom Woods writes that the “If the federal government has the exclusive right to judge the extent of its own powers, warned the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions’ authors (Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, respectively), it will continue to grow – regardless of elections, the separation of powers, and other much-touted limits on government power.” There is a conflict of interest with the federal court arbitrating disputes between the states and the federal government over the constitutionality of the federal government’s action. Just like Jefferson feared, the Supreme Court has a history of siding with the federal government instead of the states. The unfortunate truth is that the Supreme Court has upheld many unconstitutional federal laws. As Andrew Nappi of the Florida Tenth Amendment Center says “this would be like having your ex’s mother as the final judge on the structure of your divorce settlement.”
Various states are taking another approach to defeat ObamaCare. These states are considering the idea of nullification. Idaho Governor Otter recently said “we are actively exploring all our options – including nullification.” State nullification is the idea that states can refuse to enforce unconstitutional federal laws. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison both spoke of the favor of nullification. In 1798, Thomas Jefferson wrote “whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers….a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.” Likewise, James Madison said that states were “duty bound to resist” every time the federal government violated the Constitution.
Some states aren’t waiting for the outcomes of federal lawsuits in federal courts. They’re simultaneously attempting to make ObamaCare void in their state legislatures. According to the Tenth Amendment Center, “nullification is a tool in the bag of those who want to dam the river of government expansion. It has been used before, and to good ends.” Thus far, 12 states have introduced similar versions to the Federal Health Care Nullification Act drafted by the Tenth Amendment Center this year. These bills either fully nullify or refuse compliance with ObamaCare. The Federal Health Care Nullification Act introduced in Texas (HB297), Montana (SB161), Wyoming (HB0035), Oregon (HB498) and Maine (LD558) all state that ObamaCare is “hereby declared to be invalid, shall not be recognized, is specifically rejected, and shall be considered null and void and of no effect.” Idaho recently passed HB 298 which is nicknamed the “grandson of nullification.”
The 10th amendment is making a roaring comeback. Nullification has recently been used to stop federal gun laws, the Real ID and federal drug laws. Five states have introduced bills to nullify any legislation from the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) regulating greenhouse gases and the “Food Safety and Modernization Act.” In his book, Tom Woods explains that nullification has been used throughout history to support free speech, free trade and unconstitutional searches and seizures. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin used nullification to declare the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 unconstitutional.
The federal government has overstepped its constitutional limits. We can put an end to the federal government takeover of our healthcare system and other unconstitutional federal initiatives. With so many states fighting back against ObamaCare, it should send a clear message to the Obama administration. We the people do not want ObamaCare forced upon us.
Originally posted at FreedomWorks.org.
Most of us are likely to remember where we were when a national tragedy happened. As for me, I’ll always remember where I was when I heard that ObamaCare had passed the House of Representatives and was headed for President Obama’s desk. On March 21, 2010, I was sitting in the back of a crammed pickup truck from Kentucky en route to my home state of Maryland. A group of us decided to drive over nine hours to spend our entire college spring break campaigning for a long-shot senate candidate by the name of Rand Paul. During our days of walking door to door in Louisville, we met many people who expressed outrage over the proposed government takeover of our health care system.
As we sat in the back of a pickup truck listening to the final hours of the House ObamaCare debate on C-SPAN radio, it was clear that Washington didn’t get it. They were ramming through an unpopular health care reform law without consulting the American people. I thought of the elderly Kentucky man I met who shook my hand after telling me that ObamaCare made him fear for the future of his grandkids and his beloved country. It was a somber long drive home as we felt helpless to big government. When Nancy Pelosi successfully passed the 2,801 page ObamaCare bill around midnight, I was reminded of the Star Wars quote “so this is how liberty dies with thunderous applause.”
Two days later, ObamaCare was signed into law against the will of the majority of Americans. At the FreedomWorks office, my phone rang off the hook with people asking what they could do to get involved. Some of them told me that they had never been involved in politics before but they wanted to let their voices be heard. They gave me immense hope that the fight still wasn’t over. A Rasmussen poll released that week showed that 55 percent of Americans favored repeal of ObamaCare.
It’s been a grueling battle. Government health care officials told us that we would soon embrace the new health care law. A year later, support for ObamaCare repeal hasn’t died down. The newest Rasmussen poll shows that 53 percent of likely voters still support ObamaCare repeal with 43 percent strongly favoring it. One of the continuous messages at Tea Party rallies across the nation is to stop the government takeover of health care.
Even in its early stages of implementation, ObamaCare has already done damage to our economy and way of life. Due to a provision that insurance companies must charge the same rates for healthy and costly sick children, nearly every major insurance company has ceased offering child-only policies. Employer penalties in the law have led some major companies such as 3M to stop offering health benefits to retirees and low-income workers unless they are granted an exemption by HHS. Since December, two federal district judges, in Virginia and Florida, have declared Obamacare’s individual mandate requiring all U.S. residents to purchase health insurance to be unconstitutional.
We cannot afford this unconstitutional power grab. The health care law will cost $2.6 trillion during its first 10 years of full implementation. Ultimately, it will create 159 new bureaucracies to control our health care. By 2016, CBO predicts the average price of privately purchased insurance will be 27 to 30 percent higher for all Americans. Struggling American families will have to pay an average of $2,100 more for coverage. Even Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz who was originally a huge supporter of ObamaCare recently stated that “I think as the bill is currently written and if it was going to land in 2014 under the current guidelines, the pressure on small businesses, because of the mandate, is too great.”
On November 2nd, the American people’s voice was heard at the ballot box. A total of 35 Democrats who supported ObamaCare were defeated. This has increased the opposition to ObamaCare in the House by nearly 16 percent. While the fight may be far from over, we can get this unconstitutional government takeover repealed through hard work and determination. We won’t stop until the repeal bill lands on President Obama’s desk. It may be a year later but our voices are louder than ever. Let’s make sure that ObamaCare doesn’t get a second anniversary.
Originally posted at FreedomWorks.org.
On Wednesday, the House passed a bill to completely repeal ObamaCare 245-189 with three Democrats—Rep. Mike Ross (AR), Dan Boren (OK) and Mike McIntyre (NC)—joining the unanimous Republican vote. This is a huge victory for freedom. The next step is to force Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to vote on full ObamaCare repeal. Over at FoxNews.com, FreedomWorks Vice President of Health Care Policy Dean Clancy tells us exactly how to do that. While the fight may be far from over, we can get this unconstitutional government takeover repealed through hard work and determination. We won’t stop until the repeal bill lands on President Obama’s desk.
The level of opposition to ObamaCare continues to rise. In March 2010, 212 lawmakers – 178 Republicans and 34 Democrats—voted against enacting ObamaCare. This week, a bipartisan group of 245 lawmakers —242 Republicans and 3 Democrats—voted to repeal the health care law. This means that opposition to ObamaCare in the House increased by 15.6 percent since last March. The Wall Street Journal reflects on the numbers by saying, “the March vote, at 219-212 , was a lot closer and would have gone the other way had moderate Democrats not been bullied into supporting the legislation.”
Likewise, the majority of Americans oppose the new health care law. Rasmussen Report polls have shown that the support for repeal of ObamaCare has remained steady. Every week since the law’s passage, their polls have shown that the majority of Americans favor repeal. According to their latest weekly poll, 55 percent of likely voters favor repeal.
Democrats who voted for ObamaCare faced a tough election year. On November 2nd, the American people’s voice was heard at the ballot box. A total of 35 Democrats listed below who supported ObamaCare were defeated in 2010. Unfortunately, nine Democrats listed below who originally voted against ObamaCare decided to vote against repeal this week. The recent historical election should have been a warning sign. Their vote against repeal could potentially harm them if they decide to run again in 2012.
A day after the ObamaCare repeal vote, the House voted 253-175—with 14 Democrats joining the Republican majority— for a resolution that would task committees with developing a better health care plan. House Speaker John Boehner said that these proposed reforms would be “common-sense reforms that bring down the cost of health insurance.” We look forward to offering these lawmakers numerous proposals on free market health care plans that will improve health care quality while lowering cost.
Democrats Who Voted For Enactment in 2010 and Were Defeated at 2010 Polls: (35)
• Ann Kirkpatrick, AZ-1
• Harry Mitchell, AZ-5
• John Salazar, CO-3
• Betsy Markey, CO-4
• Allen Boyd, FL-2
• Alan Grayson, FL-8
• Ron Klein, FL-22
• Suzanne Kosmas, FL-24
• Melissa Bean, IL-8
• Debbie Halvorson, IL-11
• Bill Foster, IL-14
• Phil Hare, IL-17
• Baron Hill, IN-9
• Mark Schauer, MI-7
• Jim Oberstar, MN-8
• Dina Titus, NV-3
• Carol Shea-Porter, NH-1
• John Hall, NY-19
• Scott Murphy, NY-20
• Dan Maffei, NY-25
• Bob Etheridge, NC-2
• Earl Pomeroy, ND-AL
• Steve Dreihaus, OH-1
• Charlie Wilson, OH-6
• Mary Jo Kilroy, OH-15
• John Boccieri, OH-16
• Kathy Dahlkemper, PA-3
• Patrick Murphy, PA-8
• Chris Carney, PA-10
• Paul Kanjorski, PA-11
• John Spratt, SC-5
• Ciro Rodrigues, TX-23
• Solomon Ortiz, TX-27
• Tom Perriello, VA-5
Democrats Who Voted Against Enactment in 2010 and Against Repeal in 2011: (9)
• John Barrow, GA-12
• Daniel Lipinski, IL-3
• Stephen Lynch, MA-9
• Collin Peterson, MN-7
• Larry Kissel, NC-8
• Heath Shuler, NC-11
• Jason Altmire, PA-4
• Tim Holden, PA-17
• Jim Matheson, UT-2