ObamaCare

Obamacare decision updates

Here's some audio of Judge Roger Vinson on his Obamacare decision:

No, no, Roger Vinson, not Robert Vinton! Understandable mix-up since they both live in Florida.

Ahem. Well, we don't have any audio of the judge, but the text of his decision can be found here (via Legal Insurrection).

And here is the text of the Tompkins County Republican Party's press release on the decision:

In the wake of U.S. District Court Judge Vinson’s historic decision declaring Obamacare unconstitutional in its entirety and the party line Senate vote rejecting Obamacare repeal, the Tompkins County Republican Party announces its continuing support for the repeal of the entire Act.  “While we need certain healthcare reform such as tort reform and portability, the changes we make need to be sustainable.  We don’t need expensive, government controlled, Obamacare,” said James Drader, Tompkins County Republican Chairman.

“Obamacare did not have the support of a majority of the American people when it was passed and has not had majority support since,” Drader stated, “scientific polling data shows that.  The worst part of this enactment is that our representatives did not represent the people, and Democrat senators have just again denied the will of the people.  Rarely has a major enactment been passed with so little public support and on a virtually straight party line basis.”

“In a representative republic, those we elect are there to carry out the will of the people, not to decide, as an elite, that they know what is good for the people and that they have the right to force it on us.  We, as Republicans, will be vigilant in watching our elected officials, to make sure they carry out the will of the people.” 

Drader concluded, “Judge Vinson’s opinion is worth reading.  Obamacare is based on the interstate commerce power and would fine people for not buying health insurance.  But, as Judge Vinson wrote, if Congress can order us to engage in “activities” and to buy things under the commerce power, the rest of the constitution and its restrictions on Congress become meaningless and we would have a federal government of unlimited power.  Republicans support changes in our health care system, but we need to repeal this Act and start over again to develop a more limited, thoughtful, and bipartisan reform grounded in realistic cost estimates.”

And lastly, an op-ed piece by the Republican governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels.

Repeal Notes

From The Fix:

 Rep. Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.): Hanna, like [Sean] Duffy [(R-Wis)],  is a freshman from a tough district who has balked at the idea of a full repeal. Hanna has not said how he will vote, and he stresses some of the finer points of the bill that he would like to keep. With both he and Duffy, though, you've got to remember: a vote against repeal would be the equivalent of begging for a tea party primary challenger. A 'no' vote from either would be a true shocker.

Update:  The Fix article also linked from HotAir, focussing on Sean Duffy, another "key" congressman facing redistricting and possibly primary pressure.

Oh, and by the way...repeal doesn't increase the deficit

From Heritage earlier this month:

When now-House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D–CA) was sworn in as Speaker on January 4, 2007, the national debt stood at $8.67 trillion. By the time Pelosi surrendered the gavel to Speaker John Boehner (R–OH)..., the national debt stood at $14.01 trillion. At $5.34 trillion, that means Speaker Pelosi added more than $1 trillion in debt per year during her tenure as Speaker. And yet she has the audacity to tell reporters...: “Deficit reduction has been a high priority for us. It is our mantra, pay-as-you-go.”

Only someone so out of touch with reality that they could claim that “deficit reduction” has been their “highest priority” while simultaneously adding more than $1 trillion a year to the debt could possibly claim that repealing Obamacare would add to the debt. But that is exactly what Pelosi wants us to believe. Also... she claimed that repealing Obamacare would do “very serious violence to the national debt and deficit.” Nothing could be further from the truth.

And more recently from Heritage, via Human Events (h/t Tom):

...The House will soon consider H.R. 2, a measure to fully repeal ObamaCare. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), it would increase the deficit by $145 billion between 2012 and 2019.

This projection is based on CBO’s March 2010 report. But though the March report said the new law would decrease federal deficits, this was never really going to be the case. Repealing the law wouldn’t increase the deficit at all. CBO does respectable work, but their analysts have their hands tied by certain assumptions which significantly change the outlook they provide.
 
First, CBO is required to assume that current law will be enacted as written, even in cases where this seems improbable at best....
 
....Second, CBO must ignore budget gimmicks written into the legislation, including hundreds of billions in double-counted savings, [....which is] akin to trying to make a mortgage payment and buy a Macbook with the same paycheck: In the real world, you can spend money only once....
 
....ObamaCare won’t reduce the deficit, so repeal doesn’t need to be offset. Repeal is in keeping with the spirit of PAYGO, which exists to encourage long-term deficit reduction. Moreover, PAYGO requires deficit neutrality only over a 10-year budget window, so legislation can create savings in one decade but run trillions in deficits the next and still meet PAYGO requirements. The loopholes of 10-year scoring weren’t lost on the 111th Congress -- the costliest provisions of Obamacare don’t go into effect until 2014, so the CBO score includes only six years of heavy spending....
There's more—read it all, as they say, but you get the idea.
 
Memo to House Republicans: You are in charge of the House. Your new majority is 242-193.
 
Once again, tell Richard Hanna your thoughts through his House web site.

Pages

Subscribe to ObamaCare