« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Defund Obamacare Now!

The most important legislative goal for conservatives is to fully repeal Obamacare.  If we’ve learned anything from past experiences, it’s that no government entitlement program is ever repealed once the dependency takes root.  Once Obamacare is implemented, any discussion of enacting entitlement reform will be moot.  It will be too late.  That’s why we must act before we run out of time.

By now, we are all intimately acquainted with the bromide that “Republican’s only control one-half of one-third of government.”  Nonetheless, we must remember that, in the realm of appropriations, they control the most consequential body of government, the House of Representatives.  While Republicans will need control over all branches of government in order to statutorily repeal Obamacare, they can defund the law before the end of the fiscal year by merely sticking to their budget and refusing to negotiate with the Democrat Senate, which has not passed a budget in over 1000 days.

At present, the Republicans’ FY 2013 budget contains no funding for Obamacare or for its implementation.  Next week, the House will consider the Financial Services bill, H.R. 6020, which funds the IRS.  Obama’s request for an additional $1 billion to fund Obamacare has rightfully been denied by the committee-passed bill.  In addition, as noted in The Hill, the bill “prohibits the IRS from receiving transfers from the Department of Health and Human Services to implement the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”

This is a good move.  Undoubtedly, the HHS-Labor bill will also defund the Obamacare exchanges.  But the real question is this: will Republicans cave to pressure at the end of the fiscal year and agree to fund Obamacare, like they did last year?  Is this just window dressing to placate conservatives?

Last year, after much fanfare surrounding passage of the Ryan budget, Republicans caved on one budget battle after another, effectively abrogating every tenet of the budget – including its treatment of Obamacare.  Ultimately, they agreed to pass Harry Reid’s omnibus bill, which continued to fund Obamacare.

Part of the rationale for agreeing to fund Obamacare at the time was that many Republicans believed the Supreme Court would strike it down.  It just wasn’t worth forcing a shut down.  Well, that didn’t happen.  The law is set to take effect if we don’t act immediately.

Now you will hear many Republicans promise to repeal it next year when Romney wins the White House and Republicans take back the Senate.  That is certainly our most important goal at this point.  However, there are too many hypotheticals involved in that scenario.  What if Romney loses?  What if Republicans fail to win 51 seats?  What if the parliamentarian rules that parts of the law, such as guarantee issue and community rating cannot be repealed via budget reconciliation?   What if several of the members, including the likes of Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski balk at using reconciliation to repeal the full law?

A couple of Senate candidates are already running to the left and trashing the Ryan budget in order to win.  Moreover, there are a number of GOP senators who unabashedly support the pre-existing conditions and slacker mandates, which are set to take effect at the beginning of the year.  Are we to trust them with repeal of those sacred provisions after they are already in place?   We simply cannot let this thing stand and hope for repeal next year.  It certainly won’t happen if Mitch McConnell continues to serve as GOP leader.  We must defund it now, while continuing to fight for full repeal.

The longer this monster survives and the longer its perceived front-loaded benefits begin to actualize and create dependency, the harder it will be to repeal.  Yet, at present, there is nothing more politically unpopular than Obamacare.  If Democrats want to shut down the government in order to demand funding for Obamacare, that is a fight we should welcome.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • commonsenseobserver

    Than $22 billion in less growth in government spending or blocking UI extensions.

    I’d expect all GOP officials to vote against a bill that does not defund Obamacare, but we need a clear and coherent alternative to Obamacare itself.

  • renl57

    Even if you stop funding ObamaCare’s own operations, the ACA law still requires the insurance companies to provide guaranteed issue (can’t reject applicants for pre-existing conditions) and community rating (can’t adjust premiums according to age). They are also banned from imposing lifetime spending caps, as many did up to now.

    The insurance companies were counting on the revenue from the ObamaCare mandate to be able to afford to do these things.

    Take the ObamaCare money away, and you’ve stuck the insurance companies with a huge unfunded mandate.

    • renl57

      …and puts many mandates, requirements, rules and regulations on insurers, employers, ordinary citizens and health care providers.

      So before you go ahead and defund the ACA, you had better make sure you’re not cutting off funding to any of these stakeholders who were counting on that funding to fulfill their obligations under the ACA.

      Otherwise you will have created giant unfunded mandates to some of these stakeholders.

      • commonsenseobserver

        Corruption and waste go hand in hand.

      • Locked and Loaded

        You sure are advocating on their behalf. The way I see it, the insurance companies helped craft and hold the stake driven into the back of John Q.Public. If their funding is cut off for their new mandates, maybe then they’ll think more about their customers instead of greedy government power. Push, meet shove.

        • wintermute
    • tnfriendofcoal101368

      What the insurance companies will do is adjust the premium scales up for everyone based on what the actuaries tell them. They will spread the risk across all of their customers so a 20 year old athlete in perfect health will pay the same rate a 55 year old with a heart condition pays today (that wasn’t pre-existing). The insurance companies will simply charge everyone like they are 55 years old with a heart condition and every other company in the market will do the same (and they will do this health tax or no health tax).

      This is one of the most underplayed stories about Obama Care; because the government has entered regulation in the market, the costs will go up for everyone…it is a hidden tax.

      The health tax is a funding mechanism for the government to pay for the uninsured. It has a mildly positive affect for the insurance companies in that it forces every American to be their customer or pay the government. Mildly positive because insurance companies already have a large market demand and well established supply for their services.

      I’ll summarize…you increase insurance company risk, they’ll respond by spreading the risk and jacking up the cost to the consumer. You increase taxes on insurance companies, drug companies or medical supply companies, that’s cool with the companies…they’ll just pass the cost along to the consumers. Obama care (and socialized medicine) warps the free market and causes expensive disruption to the consumer (i.e. much larger costs) in that market.

      • streiff

        1. Yes, without federal subsidies in the form of healthy people buying a product they really don’t need prices will necessarily skyrocket.

        2. The penalties are small, $95 in 2014 rising to a max of $2035 for a family unit in 2016. (Details here) What do you think is going to happen? Healthy people will drop out of the system and only enroll when they have a health emergency impending. I can tell you that insurance for a family of 5 costs me a lot more than $190 or so a month.

        3. Insurance companies are then back to square one. They have to ensure everyone, their rates are strictly capped, there are no life time benefit caps, and they only have sick people in their customer pool.

        • http://www.firstchevalier.com Mark Malcolm

          which is the Left’s first line of defense.

          This is abhorrent.

          It is an affront to Article X.

          It is robbing citizens of their dignity by claiming they aren’t smart enough to make their own decisions.

          It is taking our freedom and should be opposed no matter what the cost.

          The signers of the declaration of independence did so at the risk of their lives and we are himing and hawing about a government handout. If they knew what we would do with their sacrifice I wonder if they would make the same decision again?

          • streiff

            I don’t know what your comment has to do with mine, or if it has anything to do with it at all.

        • tnfriendofcoal101368

          For the companies, the worst provision is it caps their profits (and this is socialism no matter how Obama tries to sell it).

          The insurance companies rates are capped as to how much they charge to profit but they are not capped in what they charge to break even and they will pass along risk, taxes,etc to the consumer. The insurance companies will adjust and charge the people on insurance more. It means the 45 year old on Crestor will pay more for his doctor’s visit, his stress test and his crestor. Insurance companies will move the risk to pricing (and with healthy people opting out – this is going to be high costs compared to what he pays today).

          The healthy person has an auto accident, breaks his pelvis will lose everything (as the law does not force insurance to cover pre-existing medical bills) for his bad decision not to participate. In the current environment, high deductible catastrophic insurance with health savings account is the way to go if you are healthy but I think the 30000 page crap sandwich takes away that option.

          Long term this is where we win on socialized medicine…we prove that for the majority of Americans, you will get worse care and pay more for it. Even if you are healthy, if something catastrophic happens, you go broke if you opt out (whereas currently you go the high deductible/HSA route).

          Under Obama, never in the history of the US have so many been on the Government dole, from food stamps to health care to auto companies to banks.

          • streiff

            according to Heartland, people stay uninsured until they need insurance then they sign up, run up bills, and drop out. But this shouldn’t be a surprise.

          • tnfriendofcoal101368

            I was more talking about what a prudent person should do to mitigate the risk of the damage of a catastrophic event (say a serious car accident) will do to your financial situation. In my opinion, if you are healthy HSA/High decductible is the way to go (and the Obama Tax and Screw Everyone on Health Care Law takes away even this option). Sorry for the confusion, my response was more around on options currently available to mitigate risk that we are losing.

          • tnfriendofcoal101368

            1. They are companies who are beholden to their stockholders and employees to make a profit. This is good – it is capitalism – a rising tide lifts all boats.

            2. I don’t believe this will happen because it is my belief that insurance companies can and will cover their risk due to pricing, but if this tanks the insurance industry, by necissity you will be looking at either a complete government take over of health care or a massive government bailout of the insurance industry to make TARP look like a date night with dinner and a movie. The only way health care can be paid for is to spread risk across a wide pool like is done now through insurance companies or have the tax payer pay for it directly (the single payer of the socialist dreams).

            3. The left won’t see #2 as a bad option which means we should be terrified and the cost to the consumer will skyrocket even if the insurance companies avoid the worst of #2.

            Obama care is a crap sandwich; it has to be repealed; we should accept nothing less.

          • littlehouse18

            then maybe we should crash the system as quickly as possible while people can still remember that it used to be different.

    • sulmak

      I’m not sacrificing my freedom or my country for them. If they don’t like it they better lobby for PPACA repeal.

      • littlehouse18

        ..

    • littlehouse18

      nearly enough revenue to the govt anyway, and not nearly enough incentive for people to buy insurance until they are sick.

  • julianusrex

    that the Republicans will not do what is required. They don’t have the courage to stand up and abide by their principles. They’re all talk and no real action.

    • http://www.firstchevalier.com Mark Malcolm

      n/t

  • spinoneone

    is genetically programmed to vote with Reid on health care. The House is welcome to defund both HHS and the IRS, and put on the table a budget that allows reconciliation. There is no budget now so one has to presume that reconciliation won’t work. I predict it will take the trifecta of Romney, Senate and House wins and then a year to actually kill this Hydra.

  • benko

  • DerKrieger

    The solution is at the state level. GOP governors have the power to smother Obamacare if they continue to refuse to implement it. We all know we can’t count on Boehner, McConnell and much of the establishment so let’s stop pinning all our hopes on them.

    We’d have more success in dominating red states with real conservatives who will battle the Feds to the bitter end.

    Federalism, it’s what will save the republic.

    • Common_Cents

      About time they band together and stand up to federal power.

      Perry has seemed to disappear on being out front on this. He’s a great guy to spear head the resistance.

    • audax

      nt

  • gwalt

    At the very least I would like to see House pass A No Waivers bill that will force unions and other Dem pets from escaping this.

    • http://www.firstchevalier.com Mark Malcolm

      Let them eat cake.

  • streiff

    Not the least of which is that there is no guarantee that the federal government might be forced to fund the program whether or not it wishes to. (this SCOTUS case from a few weeks ago forces the government to fund something even though it didn’t appropriate funds, and remember the federal judge who took over the Kansas City, MO school district and set about raising property taxes, etc., to eradicate “separate but equal.”

    So to say that the House refusing to fund ObamaCare is a meaningful response is, in my view, mistaken.

    The best solution is for states to refuse to accept expanded Medicaid and set up insurance exchanges. These strike at the core of the law’s ability to function and to pay for itself, even on paper. The majority of the rest can be addressed via reconciliation which can’t be filibustered in the Senate.

    • Locked and Loaded

      that SC case would apply? It was related to contracts already signed. Anyway, we would at least see some kind of spending cut come from this House.

      I think the law should be attacked on any and all fronts.

      • streiff

        but the fact is that on multiple occasions, courts at all levels have required money to be spent that no legislature appropriated. If some number of states signed contracts with HHS to run exchanges, etc., it isn’t hard to see how they could sue to get paid regardless of what Congress does. If I were the administration I’d be pushing as hard as i could to create facts before Congress, or the people, can act.

  • bdirks

    I assume you are referring to the provision allowing adult children to stay on their parents plan until they are 26. I’m not trying to pick a fight here, but I truly am wondering what the objection to this is and have for some time.

    There is no requirement that these parents have to enroll their kids, they pay extra premiums when they do so, and it adds a lot of young and healthy people who don’t need a ton of expensive medical care to the insurance pool, balancing out the older and sicker people who draw down huge medical expenses.

    Ages 23-26 is when most young people pursue law or medical school. A lot of others have to get by a on a stipend or less at an internship to get their first job. Is the conservative argument that they should go without insurance or go into more debt to buy a policy? What’s the matter with letting them stay on their parents plan?

    • pantera1968

      On many employer plans (not sure if all) there is simply a “family” or “employee and children” classification. So, since my wife already covers my two daughters, my adult son (who is 22) was added to the policy at no additional cost to my wife.

      I have never understood that. Why should someone who covers one kid pay the same premium as someone who covers 7? I understand that kids and young adults USUALLY are healthy but that still doesn’t seem quite fair to me.

    • PowerToThePeople

      it is being forced on the companies providing the insurance.

      Then you have the issue with parents throwing their kids on their plan moments after they discover an illness or an injury occurs then costing the insurance company money it can never recoup.

      It is not about being cold or wanting the “poor” to be without, it is about personal responsibility and not telling private companies they have to do something. If insurance companies knew they could make money off of healthy 26 year olds just by allowing them to be on their parents insurance, they would have already allowed it. But since most family plans do not add expense for a child to be added, it is a loss for the companies. Once you figure in the money they lose on the adults getting their own plan rather than sitting on their parents, the losses grow exponentially.

  • exitsfunnel

    No one in the world hates Obamacare more than I do, but in the phenomenally unlikely event that the GOP were dumb enough to pursue this tactic, any victory would be Pyrrhic. The congressional republicans have like an 18% approval rating already. If they shut down the government to defund Obamacare, they would be kissing the House goodbye and probably drag Romney and their shot at winning the Senate down with them. The donks would then be free to undo it all on the first day of the next congress and have another two years to run wild.

    -exits

    • streiff

      nt

  • Pingback: mehr...