CBO: Repealing Obamacare Would Reduce Gross Spending $1.4 Trillion Over Next Decade

American Spectator cites a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report that by repealing Obamacare, it would reduce gross spending by $1.4 Trillion over the next decade.

Clearly this report refutes leading Democrats'  and President Obama's claims that Obamacare is deficit neutral.  This report comes nearly two weeks after the CBO stated Obamacare would cost America 800,000 jobs, or 0.5 percent by 2021.

Not only does the net effect on the deficit decrease (Table 1), but the Congressional Budget Office also projects insurance premium costs to drop as well if the health reform is passed (Table 4).
How ironic that all of this analysis comes out months after the health care reform bill was passed.  On the bright side, at least it comes out now and House Republicans can continue working to force the repeal over the over-reaching unconstitutional bill.

U.S. House Votes to Defund Obamacare

The U.S. House led by House Republicans voted 239-187 to defund the American Patient Protection and Affordability Act.  This vote marks the continual effort by House Republicans to defund the unconstitutional health care reform bill.

While the legal battle over the legitimacy over the over-reaching health care bill moves forward in the courts, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) make good on his word to defund Obamacare.   Twenty-eight states are also suing the federal government over the legitimacy over the individual mandate, NewMax reports.

CBO: Health Care Law Will Kill 800,000 Jobs

Well, the Congressional Budget Office just admitted what the conservatives have been saying all along - Obamacare will kill jobs.  The new admission that the massive over-reaching health care reform law will kill around 800,000 gives new ammunition to the movement to repeal the legislation.  It will only be a matter of time before Obamacare is dealt a fatal blow by either Congress or the courts.

Obama's Executive Branch versus Judicial Branch

U.S. Senate Debate on Legality of Obamacare Heats Up; Senate Rejects Repeal

Once again Senate Democrats ignore the will of the American people and reject a repeal of the over-reaching and unconstitutional Obamacare health care reform bill.  The Senate vote on the full repeal of the American Patient Protection and Affordability Act failed 47-51, along party lines.  All Senate Republicans voted for the repeal, while all Democrats rejected the repeal.

While the Senate killed all hopes of a Congressional repeal of the Obamacare bill, they did pass a full repeal of the 1099 reporting of requirement for medical business purchases of equipment worth $600 or more.  That amendment sponsored by Democrat Senator Debbie Stabenow, passed 81-17.  Senior Delaware Senator Tom Carper voted against the repeal (and business), while Freshman Senator Chris Coons supported this repeal.

On the full repeal, Democrats fail to recognize that the individual mandate already validated by the Florida Federal District Court, is unconstitutional.

The battle over the legitimacy of this over-reaching bill will be done in the courts and at the state level.  The court battle either go directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, or through the Federal Appeals Court first.  Regardless, the U.S. Supreme Court will ultimately decide the fate of this bill.  The state battle will be in each state legislature (or those willing to take this on), where they will pass bills invoking the 10th Amendment to deny compliance. 

Either way, the will of the American people last November have spoken, and repeal of this bill is inevitable.

Fed. Judge ObamaCare UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNSEVERABLE

In what may be a fatal blow to Obama Care, a federal judge has ruled that the health care reform act is "unconstitutional' and "unseverable".  The latter means that the law must be rejected in whole, and not in parts.  The ruling was part of a twenty state lawsuit to repeal the severely flawed health care reform bill.

Federal Judge Roger Vinson in a 78-page ruling gave what amounts to a complete rejection of the bill based on the Commerce Clause:

The existing problems in our national health care system are recognized by everyone in this case. There is widespread sentiment for positive improvements that will reduce costs, improve the quality of care, and expand availability in a way that the nation can afford. This is obviously a very difficult task. Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the Act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution. Again, this case is not about whether the Act is wise or unwise legislation. It is about the Constitutional role of the federal government.

For the reasons stated, I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate. That is not to say, of course, that Congress is without power to address the problems and inequities in our health care system. The health care market is more than one sixth
of the national economy, and without doubt Congress has the power to reform and regulate this market. That has not been disputed in this case. The principal dispute has been about how Congress chose to exercise that power here.

Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void.

The consortium of twenty-six states have secured a crucial victory in their favor.  For them, it is refreshing that the Constitution is still valid, and that the 10th Amendment still prevails.  The consortium includes: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.  What is more troubling is why the remaining 24 states are not on-board, Delaware included.

Chief Medicare Actuary Debunks Presidential Premise for Obamacare

At a House Budget Committee hearing earlier today, Medicare's Chief Actuary Rick Foster provided a concise, damaging verdict on two key promises of the health care law's proponents.


McCLINTOCK: "True or false: The two principle promises that were made in support of Obamacare were one, that it would hold costs down. True or false?"

FOSTER: "I would say false, more so than true."

McCLINTOCK: "The other promise... was the promise that if you like your plan, you can keep it. True or false?"

FOSTER: "Not true in all cases."

Repeal and Replace

Last week, the U.S. House voted 245-189 to repeal the American Patient Protection and Affordability Act (aka Obamacare).  While that is a significant milestone to reversing big government takeover of the health care industry, it leaves a void of health care reform.  Contrary to the leftist propaganda, conservatives do want health care reform, but it must deal with cost constraint and not the delivery of health care to Americans.

During the crafting of Obamacare, the Democrats hijacked the argument and failed to focus on the end game - controlling the cost of health care.  Health care expenditures represent 1/6th of the U.S. economy, and are going higher.  Fortunately, Americans are smarter than the Democrats in Congress and voted against them in the mid-term elections.  But repealing Obamacare will only repeal the bill, and is not a substitute to not crafting legislation of meaningful health care reform that addresses cost constraint and lack of competition in the health care insurance industry.

While the U.S. Senate deals with the House Bill 2 that repealed the American Patient Protection and Affordability Act, now is the time to replace that bill with real reform.  Here are a few suggestions by BlueHenConservative:

• Health Care Inter-State Competition Act, which would compel states to mandate intra-state commerce of health insurance policies.  The bill would also compel state Insurance Commissioners to regulate the health insurance firms, much as they do property, life and auto insurance firms which compete freely in all fifty states.
• Health Care Tort Reform Act, which would compel states to establish limits on awards from health care court cases, based on historical and actuarial calculations by industry states.
• American Health Insurance Affordability Act, which is part two of the Health Care Intra-State Competition Act would compel states to establish insurance pools based on population on basic, intermediate and high-need health needs.  States would be encouraged to market the plans to its residents to reduce the number of insured in each state.
• Health Care Technology Act, which would compel states to regulate health providers to leverage technology versus paper records, and also to share records with other providers to reduce overlap of unnecessary procedures and drug prescriptions.
• Health Care Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit health insurers from denying coverage to patients who have existing conditions.  The act would also prohibit discriminatory pricing as a result of existing conditions.

Congress would be wise to adopt these separate and simple reform measures to the cost of health care.  America does not need a nearly 3,000 page bill to dictate how health care should be delivered in America.