SHOULD THE HEALTHCARE ACT BE DEFUNDED?

Obstructions to a Free America

Q:  What is meant by "defunding Obamacare" (ACA) -

A:  Attaching a legislative rider to a 'must pass' bill such as the debt limit, spending bill, etc. that prohibits funds from being spent on any activities to implement or enforce the Affordable Care Act; recinds any unspent balances that may have been appropriated and turns off the exchange subsidy and new Medicaid spending that were in the 'auto-pilot'.
Q:   Isn't defunding impossible because there is not a specific funding stream for Obamacare?  Funding is embedded throughout the federal government and not specifically designated?
A:  No. Congress is aware of all of the programs that fund Obamacare because CRS has provided such a list and the Appropriations Committees are well versed in the funding intricacies of the law.  However, a blanket prohibition against funding all activities associated with implementing the law is all that is needed to halt implementation.
Q:  If you don't have the votes for a statutory repeal, why would you think you can get the votes to defund Obamacare?
A:  The Constitution grants the House of Representatives the ultimate "power of the purse".  If Congress chooses not to fund Obamacare activities for the upcoming fiscal year, the Obama Administration cannot act to implement the law.  The President's party does not control the House of Representatives, which must originate debt limit and spending bills to fund the government.  And the House Republic Majority was elected in 2010, on the basis of its platform against Obamacare.

FINDING A BACKBONE

In my previous post, I wrote concerning de-funding Obamacare, official name 'Affordable Care Act' (ACA).  There has been a lot of talk, pro and con, regarding such a move by the Republicans in the House; however, some Republicans and the liberal Democrat side of the aisle, maintain such a move would precipitate a shutdown of the government.  Well, on the one hand that could be a relief considering the politicians don't seem able to actually represent their constituents anyway.  We can rightfully assume the bill would never pass in the Senate and the President wouldn't sign it even if it did because that is his 'signature' piece of accomplishment.  

 

I previously stated five (5) legitimate reasons to de-fund ACA which you can read on my post - August 14th.  Unfortunately I neglected a few other important points such as:
 

*  92% of federal workers don't want 'Obamacare'
 

* the healthcare act requires employers with 50 employees to offer government approved health insurance to employees who work at least 30 hrs. or more a week or face a fine of up to $3,000 per employee; consequently, many businesses are beginning to either reduce their work force or limit hours worked to less than 30 hours - effectively doing away with the 40 hr. work week
 

*  according to an unpublished CRS memo - the Obama administration has missed half of the healthcare act's legally imposed implementation deadlines
 

*  The ACA  contains forced inspection provisions such as 'forced visits' on homes the government considers high risk such as:  families in communities identified by states as needing services to improve parenting and child care; families with a history of substance abuse; families containing tobacco users; families with children with disabilities, etc.
 

*  the IRS (that pillar of piety, transparancy and goodwill) will oversee the entire project and have full access to all, and I mean ALL, of your records - medical, financial, property holdings, etc.

DEFUNDING OBAMACARE

June 28, 2012: 
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Mandate requiring Americans to buy health insurance or pay a penalty is constitutional.  This is the key part of President Obama's signature health care law.  The ruling was 5/4 with Chief Justice Roberts siding with the majority that the mandate is unconstitutional under the Constitution's Commerce Clause but can stay as part of Congress' taxing power.  In other words, the government can tax people for not having health insurance.  Truly, a first - the implication being that Congress now has the authority to tax you for NOT purchasing something!  Unbelievable!

In order to justify this injustice, Justice Roberts was able to finagle the law around enough to determine that ultimately it was a tax (which the President had vehemently insisted it wasn't) in order for it to stand.  "The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax", Justice Roberts wrote.

This law has been controversial from the git-go.  In a poll taken November of 2009, 8 polls showed that by an average margin of 8.5% (49.0% to 40.5%) more people opposed Obamacare than supported it (see:  www.nationalreview.com/ ).  Today, since more and more details of this 'law' emerge, some pollings show that ".....54% of Americans oppose the law, 53% want opponents to 'continue trying to change or stop it,' and 56% want to return what we had before".  This past June marked 4 solid years of public opposition; some polls show only a third of the public support Obamacare.  Unions that supported it are now angry over its unintended consequences and one union is calling for repeal.  (see: www.nytimescom/roomfordebate/2013/05/29/). 

What are some reasons for repealing this albatross?  Let me count the ways (not necessarily in order):

MERCHANTS OF HATE

When will it all end?  When will the race merchants let it end? 

 

Since the trial of George Zimmerman, who was found not guilty of 2nd degree murder of teenager Trayvon Martin,  racial tensions are again escalating and there seems no end in sight.  Actually, since we elected the first mixed race President, who flaunts his skin color and hides from his white past, we have had nothing short of racial strife on a daily basis.  Four plus years into his presidency, nothing has changed for the better when it comes to race.  Amazing, isn't it?  Aided and abetted by his U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder who calls Americans cowards, Al Sharpton who never lets a tragedy go to waste even if he has to make up the details, Jesse Jackson his sidekick, many members of the US House of Representative Black Caucus, and every liberal and liberal media outlet, the citizens of this country who are trying to get along simply don't have a chance.

It is without doubt a tragedy when a parent loses a child regardless of the circumstance, but more so when the loss is brought about by the violent action(s) of another individual.  That is true in the Trayvon Martin case.  We are hearing a lot about this particular death and the media has played it full bore, fueling the frenzy of hate and racism.  There is almost no let up.  So, I must ask, where was the media and the cries of injustice in the following horrific crimes:

WARNING! THE INJURIES SUSTAINED IN THE FIRST TWO INSTANCES CITED ARE SOMEWHAT DETAILED AND MAY UPSET THE READER

AMERICA: THE NEW POLICE STATE?

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."



In extremely simple terms, it means that you are supposed to be safe in the comfort of your home without having a group of stormtroopers barging through your front door, terrifying you and your children or whoever else happens to be there, without the proper authorization of a warrant that has been legitimately issued by a judge for a legitimate reason.  Unfortunately, some pretty strange things are beginning to happen all over America and our homes are no longer safe from "unreasonable searches and seizures".  Following are just four startling examples:

1. Boston Bombing - the most flagrant violater of the Fourth Amendment to  date.