WASHINGTON — The newly muscular House Republicans voted Wednesday to overturn President Obama’s health care overhaul — a move that is largely symbolic because the Democratic-controlled Senate is poised to ignore it while Obama is certain to veto it should it somehow pass through Congress.
The House passed the bill 245-189 with three Democrats — Reps. Mike Ross, Dan Boren and Mike McIntyre –joining the Republican effort.
Even though Democrats are certain to block the bill in the Senate, Republicans are determined to chisel away at the law through attempts to deny funding for parts of the legislation as they go into effect in the coming years.
House Republicans, toning down their rhetoric slightly, plan to reset the debate over the health law repeal Tuesday on Capitol Hill, building a strictly economic case against “Obamacare” after pausing for a week out of respect for the victims of the Tucson shooting.
GOP leaders are in unison in arguing that they cannot wait any longer to resume debate on the health care overhaul. While the repeal stands scant chance of clearing Congress or withstanding a presidential veto, Republicans say the public demands Washington start early chipping away at the law.
Both sides, though, may try a little harder to keep the debate from becoming overheated. President Obama and Republicans alike reject claims that political rhetoric contributed to the shooting last Saturday in Arizona. But the president urged Congress to keep the discourse “worthy” of the victims. And in the days following, House Speaker John Boehner has noticeably avoided describing the bill as the “job-killing” health care law.
by Lesley Swann, Tennessee Tenth Amendment Center
Pushing back against the unconstitutional overreach of the federal health care legislation is priority number one for many liberty and tea party groups in the Great State of Tennessee. Many ideas have been floated by various groups throughout the country as to the best means of revoking the federal health care legislation. Several interesting ideas have been proposed, among them are federal lawsuits, interstate compacts, and state nullification.
When one takes a critical look at these options, it becomes clear that all three of these options boil down to a simple question. Do we ask permission from the federal government to undo Obamacare or simply undo it?
Federal Lawsuits: Asking Permission from the Federal Courts to Exercise Our Constitutional Rights
A point to be made with regards to lawsuits is that they will be pursued in FEDERAL courts. We will be asking the federal government to police itself, which it is most likely unwilling and, quite frankly, unfit to do. The judges in these courts are appointed by and employed by the federal government, draw a federal paycheck, and will most likely be unwilling to “bit the hand that feeds them” as it were. The federal court system has proven time and again that it most likely will rule on the side of expanding the role of the federal government, as it is a part of the vast federal bureaucracy whose primary concern is perpetuating itself.
“The unchecked expansion of congressional power to the limits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage Provision would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers. At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance-or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage-it’s about an individual’s right to choose to participate.” So wrote Judge Henry Hudson of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia yesterday in striking down Obamacare’s individual mandate. Specifically, Judge Hudson found that Section 1501 of the act, which forces all Americans to buy government approved health insurance policies, “exceeds the Commerce Clause powers vested in Congress under Article 1.”
A federal judge ruled that a central plank of the health law-the requirement that most Americans carry insurance-violates the Constitution, dealing the biggest setback yet to the Obama administration’s signature legislative accomplishment. Ashby Jones discusses.
U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson said the law’s requirement that most Americans carry insurance or pay a penalty “exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power.”
The 42-page ruling doesn’t mean states or the federal government must stop implementing the law. But it is expected to give ammunition to a broad Republican assault against the overhaul, which includes efforts in Congress to chip away at it.
Requiring Americans to buy insurance “would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers,” wrote Judge Hudson, a George W. Bush appointee in the Eastern District of Virginia. “At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance-or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage-it’s about an individual’s right to choose to participate.”
Michelle Malkin
For the kiddie human shields who helped the Democrats dig their own ditch, reality bites.
It’s time for America’s youth to buckle up and take a rough ride on Reality Highway. For the past two years, President Obama has promised our children the moon, stars, rainbows, unicorns, and universal health care for all. But the White House Santa’s cradle-to-grave entitlement mandates have been a spectacularly predictable bust.
Don’t take it from me. Take it from Obamacare’s own biggest cheerleaders.
Late last month, the Service Employees International Union informed dues-paying members of its behemoth 1199 affiliate in New York that it was dropping its health-care coverage for children. That’s right. A radical, leftist union – not an evil, Republican corporation – is abandoning the young ‘uns to cut costs.
Over 30,000 low-wage families will be affected, according to the Wall Street Journal. Who’s to blame? SEIU 1199 benefits manager Mitra Behroozi singled out oppressive new state and federal regulations, including the much-ballyhooed Obamacare rule forcing insurers to cover dependents well into their 20s.
“New federal health-care-reform legislation requires plans with dependent coverage to expand that coverage up to age 26,” Behroozi explained in an October 22 letter to members. “Our limited resources are already stretched as far as possible, and meeting this new requirement would be financially impossible.”
Progressive pundits and policy wonks boast that, despite Tuesday’s Republican victory in the House, ObamaCare will be very difficult to eradicate. They correctly point out that, to get rid of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), both houses of Congress must pass repeal legislation and that a Democrat filibuster would more than likely forestall any such effort in the Senate. They further point out that President Obama would certainly veto any repeal bill that somehow found its way to his desk, and that there is virtually no chance that his veto would be overridden. All of this is absolutely true. Moreover, the PPACA infection has already been introduced into the health care system and has begun to spread. Nonetheless, when the Republicans officially take control of the House in January, they will still have the ability inoculate us against future outbreaks of this contagion.
The three-stage vaccine with which the GOP can stop the spread of PPACA has already been proven effective — in Massachusetts of all places. It will come as a surprise to many that Romneycare was not the first “universal coverage” law to be inflicted on the long-suffering citizens of the Bay State. In 1988 that state’s legislature passed a health care bill containing many of the provisions that later reappeared in the 2006 boondoggle signed by Romney. That “reform” program was signed into law by then-governor Michael Dukakis, who gave it a prominent place in his résumé during his unsuccessful bid for the presidency. Like polio, however, “DukakisCare” is all but forgotten. Why? Because a group of newly elected state legislators defunded the program, delayed its implementation and, for all intents and purposes, killed it after Republican William Weld was elected governor in 1990.
A federal judge on Thursday upheld the authority of the federal government to require everyone to have health insurance, dealing a setback to groups seeking to block the new national health care plan.
The ruling came in a lawsuit filed in Michigan by a Christian legal group and four people who claimed lawmakers exceeded their power under the Constitution’s commerce clause, which authorizes Congress to regulate trade.
But Judge George Caram Steeh in Detroit said the mandate to get insurance by 2014 and the financial penalty for skipping coverage are legal. He said Congress was trying to lower the overall cost of insurance by requiring participation.
“Without the minimum coverage provision, there would be an incentive for some individuals to wait to purchase health insurance until they needed care, knowing that insurance would be available at all times,” the judge said.
Ed Pastor has been the 4th district Representative to Congress for Arizona since 1992. Elected and reelected with no fewer than 60% of the vote, Pastor is Arizona’s first Latino representative in Congress. The voters of district 4 have had confidence in returning him to Washington eight times. This November, he faces his toughest challenger.
Janet Contreras answered the call to run against Congressman Pastor largely through public outcry. Support for her to enter the race gained momentum after an appearance with Glenn Beck, where letters, emails and encouragement came not only from her district, but also all over the United States.
Contreras ‘ challenge to Pastor comes at a time when public perception of Congress is very unfavorable, and her campaign is capitalizing on this fact. She believes in fiscal responsibility and accountability by members of Congress, and pledges to bring with her to Washington a common sense approach to spending. She promises to curb irresponsible spending, with earmarks requiring open debate on the floor to prove their merits. She believes that federal spending should “benefit the American people as a whole, not just one group or constituency.”
