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.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor recently announced his intention to bring Rep. Ron Paul’s audit the Fed bill to a floor vote in July. According to the Library of Congress’ THOMAS website, H.R. 459, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2011, currently has 245 cosponsors.
FreedomWorks has identified 30 (edit: now 14!) Republican House members who have not cosponsored the audit the Fed bill.
I urge you to contact the following representatives below and urge them to cosponsor H.R. 459 today.
*Speaker of the House. Rarely cosponsors bills.
**Majority Leader. Rarely cosponsors bills.
Click here to see FreedomWorks’ letter in support of H.R. 459.
Click here to contact your representative and ask him or her to cosponsor H.R. 459.
Edit: It is interesting to note that Reps. Boehner, Brady, Cantor, Issa, King, Nunes, Reichert, Royce, and Ryan all cosponsored Ron Paul’s identical bill (H.R. 1207) in 2009.
What are they waiting for?
Senator Rand Paul recently endorsed Mitt Romney on the Sean Hannity Show on FOX. Does this make him a sell out? Or did he compromise politically to advance liberty?