On September 29 the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee posted this notice: “Ways and Means Passes Reconciliation Bill to Dismantle Obamacare.” The website stated:
This bill is a big step toward dismantling Obamacare. Through reconciliation, we have the opportunity to get a repeal bill not only through the House — but actually to the president’s desk.
The Budget Reconciliation Legislative Recommendations package that the committee passed is certainly a step away from ObamaCare. Section one of the package would repeal the individual mandate, and section two would repeal the employer mandate. The excise tax on medical devices would be repealed by section three. And section four would repeal the tax on employee health insurance premiums and health insurance benefits as well as the IRS reporting requirements by taxpayers.
But if the goal is to get rid of ObamaCare, why employ a clever move in committee rather than a stand-alone bill to repeal the healthcare law? Why pass legislation that addresses only part of the problem and then attach it to other legislation? And why not use popular support to force a Senate vote on repeal? After all, the American people are fed up with ObamaCare and want it repealed in its entirety.
The answer to the “clever move question,” at least the one for public consumption, is that it is supposedly necessary in order to prevent a filibuster in the Senate. However, such a filibuster is not truly a serious threat to ObamaCare repeal, because it would result in a list of all the yea and nay votes of each senator. And anyone who has noticed the turnover in Congress in the last few elections must be aware of the strong correlation between failing to vote for ObamaCare repeal and failure to get re-elected.
The real problem with ObamaCare repeal is that the Republican leadership in both the House and the Senate have failed to dig in their heels on this issue. Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) played political hardball against conservative Republicans when helping grant Trade Promotion Authority to the president, so it’s clear they know the ropes. Too bad they’re not playing hardball when it comes to repealing ObamaCare.
Why pass legislation that only partially dismantles ObamaCare and then attach it to other legislation that is virtually certain to be vetoed? Will this bill become part of a presidential veto followed by a showdown where House and Senate Republicans cave in — supposedly reluctantly? The answer in this case remains to be seen, but must-pass legislation has been used in the past to allow Republican politicians to justify voting against their stated positions.
Why Not Force an ObamaCare Repeal Vote in the Senate?
Why aren’t the Republican leaders employing popular support to force a repeal vote in the Senate? ObamaCare repeal was one of the top issues of the 2014 congressional and senatorial campaigns. CNSNews.com observed on November 5, 2014: “Every new GOP senator who won in last night’s election campaigned on repealing Obamacare.”
Public opposition to the healthcare law is so strong that even some Democrats oppose it — some of them getting the wake-up call when they read line 61 of this year’s IRS Form 1040 and had to answer questions about their so-called “individual shared responsibility.” That’s the federal government’s euphemism for federally mandated healthcare insurance coverage. Equally euphemistic is the name for the IRS penalties levied for failing to have the federally mandated coverage: “Individual Shared Responsibility Payment.”
Numerous ObamaCare repeal bills were filed when the 114th Congress convened this past January. Some of the bills sought to rescue ObamaCare by reforming it, while some would have repealed and replaced it. Of course, anyone familiar with politics on the Potomac knows that “repeal and replace” usually means “keep and rename.”
HR 596 was passed by the House on February 3 and sent to the Senate. The last major action on this bill was when it was referred to committee on April 29. It has one drawback: Section 3 of the bill is entitled “Reporting Replacement Legislation.” There is no need for replacement legislation. Federal government healthcare is unconstitutional. And the free market will do it far, far better.
If Section 3 is removed, H.R. 596 would be virtually identical to S. 336 and S. 339, two bills filed by Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas). S. 336 has 51 cosponsors. That means 52 senators have committed in favor of this bill. Whether they actually mean it or if they’ve just signed on as cosponsors because it looks good politically, remains to be seen. The New American contacted Senator Cruz’s office inquiring if he intends to use the strength of 52 senators declaring in favor of repealing the healthcare law to force ObamaCare repeal out of committee. As of press time, his office has not yet responded.
ObamaCare repeal would put an obstacle in the path of those who want to merge the United States into a regional union as a precursor to world government. A comfortable merger, that is comfortable for those doing the merging, requires similar infrastructures, such as similar systems for socialized healthcare, national police forces, etc.
Repeal is the obvious will of the majority of voters. The American people must stand up and insist that their U.S. representatives and senators fulfill their pledges to repeal ObamaCare. Not reform it, not repeal and replace it, not dismantle it over time — just simply repeal it.
