Broken Promises: Obamacare, One Year Later, Worse Than Originally Projected

Recently the CBO came out with their report on Obamacare showing the Obama administration and the then Democratically controlled House and the still Democratically controlled Senate, severely miscalculated and underestimated the costs and deficit of Obamacare.

That CBO report got lost in the news as widespread reports of Japan's earthquake, Tsunami and subsequent nuclear problems dominated the news.

Reminder from my previous piece:

The CBO's bottom line from their website summary:

Compared with the Administration's estimates, CBO's estimates of the deficit under the President's budget are lower for 2011 (by $220 billion) but higher for each year thereafter (by a total of $2.3 trillion over the 2012–2021 period). That disparity stems from differences in the underlying projections of what would happen under current law ($1.3 trillion) as well as from differing assessments of the effects of the President's proposals ($1.0 trillion).

That was the initial, official bad news for Obamacare last week.

Today we see things are even worse as the Heritage org. details in full, the havoc Obamacare has wrought and the lack of benefit seen by it's passage.

Many of Obamacare’s key provisions—such as the creation of health insurance exchanges, costly subsidies to purchase coverage, the massive expansion of Medicaid, and the individual and employer mandates—do not take effect until 2014. However, several important provisions—such as minimum loss ratio regulations, the small-business health insurance tax credit, high-risk pools, and coverage mandates on insurance companies—have already taken effect. Obamacare has already added over 6,500 pages of regulations to the Federal Register. The Obama Administration has struggled to implement many of these regulations, and the number of waivers that exempt entities from complying with the law has passed 1,000 and is growing by the day.

Obamacare has increased government control of Americans’ health care choices, raised the cost of insurance, forced insurers to stop offering child-only policies, broken the promise that an individual can keep his insurance unaltered, and bailed out underfunded union early-retiree health care plans. The early results suggest that Obamacare’s “benefits” are not worth their costs.

They go through it item by item, covering Insurance Mandates, Child-Only Health Insurance, Annual Limits and Mini-Med Plans, Medical Loss Ratio Regulation, Multiple and Uncertain Requirements for Grandfathered Plans, “Free” Preventive Services, Reviews of “Unreasonable” Premium Increases, Early-Retiree Reinsurance Program, Creation of High-Risk Pools, Small-Business Health Tax Credit, HSA and FSA Restrictions, Medicare Beneficiary Drug Rebate and State Option to Expand Medicaid Coverage for Childless Adults.

The conclusion: Obamacare “Benefits” Are Too Costly to Continue

America urgently needs to reform health care, as increasing health care spending is consuming ever larger shares of household and government budgets. Obamacare falls short of genuine reform because its “benefits” will both increase the cost of private insurance and government spending on health care.[43]

Congress should repeal the government-centric Obamacare law and replace it with consumer-focused reforms and sensible changes in health care entitlement programs. America simply cannot afford Obamacare’s “benefits.”

Read the entire article .



Wall Street Journal points out that the cost of Obamacare has jumped by 8.6 percent in just the first year.

To wit, CBO says the entitlement’s health insurance subsidies will cost $1.13 trillion between 2012 and 2021, not $1.04 trillion, the prior estimate. This 8.6% jump is the result of revised assumptions, the so-called technical factors in CBO’s budget model. The bill’s total cost now stands at $1.445 trillion, according to another recent CBO estimate.

Remember that all of these are fictitious numbers that reflect Congressional gaming of CBO conventions to make it seem as if ObamaCare “saves” money. But now, even under these conventions, CBO is conceding that it significantly underestimated the bill’s cost. If the propeller heads decide to add a few more trillion dollars in new spending, they might get somewhat closer to the bill’s true cost.

According to the polling done over the last year since the passage of Obamacare, the average opposition is still over 50 percent.

Video below of Speaker of the House, John Boehner, speaking about Obamacare's "broken Promises"



Text provided by Speaker.gov.:

Speaker Boehner on One Year of Job-Crushing ObamaCare

“If there’s a constant in the story of ObamaCare, it’s broken promises.

“Instead of creating jobs, employers have been handed more uncertainty and more headaches. Instead of lower costs, families and small businesses are being squeezed even further. Instead of keeping what they like, millions are being forced off their coverage.

“For all that, a more fundamental promise was broken when this government takeover of health care was pushed through. That day, that week, the people said one thing, and their government did another. Yet the people, unfazed by Washington’s payoffs and backroom deals, kept speaking out as the law proved unpopular, unaffordable, and unconstitutional.

“In January, the House passed a measure, consistent with the will of the people, repealing the job-crushing health care law. The House has also voted to defund the law altogether. In the coming weeks, you’ll see more votes and more hearings in the House to take this law apart, step by step. That includes repealing the law’s mandatory spending slush funds. In short, we will do whatever we can to ensure ObamaCare is never fully implemented.

“Together, we can repeal ObamaCare and replace it with common-sense reforms that lower costs and protect American jobs.”

News also shows that in a desperate attempt to mask the new projected costs and deficits of Obamacare, the Obama administration has tasked 42 officials to attend events in 22 states to talk up Obamacare and try to "image-shape".

Any bets on them mentioning the facts and figures provided by the CBO, the 1,000+ waivers, the deficit projections, or the other myriad of "unintended consequences" we have seen over the last year?

It becomes one of those cases where politicians and their lackeys try to tell you to believe what they say, not your own eyes, believe their promises, not the actual figures, believe the hype, not the truth.

That has not worked in the full year since the passage of the law and I doubt Americans are going to fall for it now.

Meanwhile, I have said this before and it is worth repeating... Obamacare, can, should and will be a large factor in the 2012 elections and one that has not proven beneficial for Obamacare supporting politicians aka Democrats.




Related:

Health care law a bad prescription

ObamaCare and Carey's Heart

Price Predicts Court Will Kill Obamacare

Health care law breaks promises

Poll: One Year Later, Americans Still Hate Obamacare

.

Senate Democrats Reject Obamacare Repeal, Vote 47-51

Along a straight party line vote Democrats in the Senate all voted against repealing Obamacare with every Senate Republican voting for the measure to repeal.

47 to 51 and two not voting. Roll call here.

With Democrats still holding a majority in the Senate, this outcome was expected but managed to put all Senate Democrats on record voting against the repeal of Obamacare which was passed against the wishes of the majority of Americans last March and still has a majority of the American public opposed to it (53 percent to 43 percent).

Via The Hill:

Republicans have acknowledged their goal with the vote was to get Democrats on record as defending a law that remains deeply unpopular with large swaths of the public. Twenty-three Senate Democrats are up for re-election in 2012, and many of them face tough races.

"I think the American people understand fully this issue and they know for sure where Democrats and Republicans are," McConnell said after the vote.

Republicans have vowed to pursue their attacks on the law until the next election, when they hope to have enough Senate votes to repeal it. In the meantime, they’ve announced plans to withhold funding for its implementation and have introduced multiple bills to repeal bits and pieces, such as the individual mandate or the Medicare payment board.

The Senate held another vote on repealing one specific portion of Obamacare which would require businesses to report annual purchases of goods and services of more than $600 to each vendor.

That repeal was passed with a vote of 81 to 17 with two not voting. Roll call on that found here.

2012 elections:

One third of the Senate seats will be in play in November 2012.

Currently, Democrats are expected to have 23 seats up for election, including two independents who caucus with the Democrats, and Republicans are expected to have 10 seats up for election.

1	Dianne	Feinstein	California
2	Tom	Carper	Delaware
3	Bill	Nelson	Florida
4	Daniel	Akaka	Hawaii
5	Ben	Cardin	Maryland
6	Debbie	Stabenow	Michigan
7	Amy	Klobuchar	Minnesota
8	Claire	McCaskill	Missouri
9	Jon	Tester	Montana
10	Ben	Nelson	Nebraska
11	Bob	Menendez	New Jersey
12	Jeff	Bingaman	New Mexico
13	Kirsten	Gillibrand	New York
14	Kent	Conrad	North Dakota
15	Sherrod	Brown	Ohio
16	Bob	Casey, Jr.	Pennsylvania
17	Sheldon	Whitehouse	Rhode Island
18	Jim	Webb	Virginia
19	Maria	Cantwell	Washington
20	Joe	Manchin	West Virginia
21	Herb	Kohl	Wisconsin
	Independent incumbent elections
22	Joe	Lieberman	Connecticut
23	Bernie	Sanders	Vermont

Lieberman is the only one on the list of 23 Democrats and/or Independents that caucus with Democrats that was a no vote yesterday on repealing Obamacare. Lieberman recent announced he will not run for reelection in 2012.

The rest will all need to explain their vote to their constituents come November 2012.

Any Republican challengers to those Senate seats can, should and assuredly will use this vote and any other votes Republicans force Democrats in the Senate to make opposing the repeal of Obamacare, against them in campaigns.

Two judges recently declared the individual mandate portion of Obamacare aka Affordable Care Act to be unconstitutional, with the latest ruling stating the whole law is to be declared void.

The case is expected to ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court with pundits believing that court battle would be fought very close to the 2012 elections.

More on the court rulings with links to the ruling itself can be found at a previous post.

.

Obamacare Is Dead, Now It Just Has To Be Buried

In accordance with Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2201(a), a Declaratory Judgment shall be entered separately, declaring “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” unconstitutional.

(Above quote from ruling, page #77-78)


Ruling embedded at the bottom of the post.

The White House and Liberals are howling about judicial activism but the 78 page ruling by U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson was well thought out and exhaustive in its reasoning and explanations and after going though the ruling itself and the discussions surrounding the ruling, it is apparent that Vinson has dotted all his i's and crossed all his t's.

Congress exceeded it's authority in attempting to force individuals to purchase a service and the White House, by it's own actions and those of Congress, removed the severability clause that could have saved other portions of Obamacase aka Affordable Care Act, from an earlier version and Judge Vinson careful highlights that on page #67 and 68.

The lack of a severability clause in this case is significant because one had been included in an earlier version of the Act, but it was removed in the bill that subsequently became law. “Where Congress includes [particular] language in an earlier version of a bill but deletes it prior to enactment, it may be presumed that the [omitted provision] was not intended.” Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23-24, 104 S. Ct. 296, 78 L. Ed. 2d 17 (1983). In other words, the severability clause was intentionally left out of the Act. The absence of a severability clause is further significant because the individual mandate was controversial all during the progress of the legislation and Congress was undoubtedly well aware that legal challenges were coming. Indeed, as noted earlier, even before the Act became law, several states had passed statutes declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional and purporting to exempt their residents from it; and Congress’ own attorneys in the CRS had basically advised that the challenges might well have legal merit as it was “unclear” if the individual mandate had “solid constitutional foundation.” See CRS Analysis, supra, at 3. In light of the foregoing, Congress’ failure to include a severability clause in the Act (or, more accurately, its decision to not include one that had been included earlier) can be viewed as strong evidence that Congress recognized the Act could not operate as intended without the individual mandate.

As mentioned yesterday when the news of the ruling first broke, Vinson also stated directly "While the individual mandate was clearly 'necessary and essential' to the act as drafted, it is not 'necessary and essential' to health care reform in general," he continued. "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void."

The White House may ask a higher court for a stay on this ruling but barring that and despite reports to the contrary, Judge Vinson not only declared the whole Act void but also ensured the White either stop implementation or break the law by continuing to implement portions of Obamacare until a final court ruling comes to pass.

Cato@Liberty explains by using a quote from page #75 of the Vinson ruling:

Declaratory judgment is, in a context such as this where federal officers are defendants, the practical equivalent of specific relief such as an injunction . . . since it must be presumed that federal officers will adhere to the law as declared by the court. [Quoting a D.C. Circuit opinion written by none other than then-Judge Antonin Scalia]

Without a stay on this ruling from a higher court, continuing to implement any part of it will be against the law and the New York Times reports that a senior White House official has stated "Implementation would continue apace."

The Pensacola case is now likely to head to the Eleventh Circuit in Atlanta, considered one of the country’s most conservative appellate benches. The Richmond case is already with another conservative court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, which has set oral arguments for May.

There is no doubt this case will make it to the Supreme Court and each ruling against it from lower courts will be written to carefully highlight the legal reasoning on how Congress and Barack Obama have exceeded their authority by trying to regulate inactivity on the part of American citizens.

Congress as well as presidents do have limits to their power and the constitutionality of Obamacare was brought up continually during the battle waged to keep it from being passed. Obama and the then-Democratically controlled House and Senate arrogantly waved those concerns away, hell bent on passage of Obamacare and now those decisions as well as a sloppily written law, are all being picked apart and shown publicly just how careless they were by the court system.

Democrats are now scrambling for alternatives but with the House of Representatives now controlled by Republicans, Democrats no longer have control to jam through anything they want as they did in March when they passed Obamacare.

As mentioned by others but something which needs to be passed on far and wide as further proof that Barack Obama speaks from both sides of his mouth, Judge Vinson includes a footnote, page #76)

On this point, it should be emphasized that while the individual mandate was clearly “necessary and essential” to the Act as drafted, it is not “necessary and essential” to health care reform in general. It is undisputed that there are various other (Constitutional) ways to accomplish what Congress wanted to do. Indeed, I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that "if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house.” See Interview on CNN’s American Morning, Feb. 5, 2008, transcript available at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0802/05/ltm.02.html. In fact, he pointed to the similar individual mandate in Massachusetts --- which was imposed under the state’s police power, a power the federal government does not have --- and opined that the mandate there left some residents “worse off” than they had been before.
See Christopher Lee, Simple Question Defines Complex Health Debate, Washington Post, Feb. 24, 2008, at A10 (quoting Senator Obama as saying: "In some cases, there are people [in Massachusetts] who are paying fines and still can't afford [health insurance], so now they're worse off than they were . . . They don't have health insurance, and they're paying a fine . . .”).

Obamacare is dead. The funeral may be a couple years down the road but Democrats and progressive liberals that encouraged their Democratically controlled Congress to act carelessly will have those years to go through their 5 stages of grief.

Denial- Check Check
Anger- Check
Bargaining - Check Check Check
Depression
Acceptance


Embedded ruling:

Vinson Ruling

.

BREAKING: Federal Judge Rules Obama’s Health Care Act Is Unconstitutional- Says Whole Act Must Be Declared Void

[Update] From U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson's ruling, the exact wording is that the whole act must be declared void..

"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," Vinson wrote.

"While the individual mandate was clearly 'necessary and essential' to the act as drafted, it is not 'necessary and essential' to health care reform in general," he continued. "Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void."

78 page ruling can be found here. (Quotes above are on page 76.)

Original post below-

"Congress exceeded it’s authority by requiring Americans buy health insurance."

News just in that U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson has ruled the individual mandate portion of Obamacare where citizens are required to purchase health insurance or face penalties is unconstitutional and Congress exceeded it's authority.

President Barack Obama’s health care reform legislation, assailed as an abuse of federal power in a 26-state lawsuit, was ruled unconstitutional by a U.S. judge.

U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson in Pensacola, Florida, declared the law unconstitutional in a ruling today. Then- Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum filed suit on behalf of 13 states on March 23, the same day Obama signed into law the legislation intended to provide the U.S. with almost universal health-care coverage. Seven states joined the litigation last year, and six signed on this year. Virginia Attorney General Kenneth Cuccinelli sued separately on March 23 and Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt filed his own suit on Jan. 21.

This is the biggest court victory to date for opponents of the law's requirement that all Americans buy health insurance which is a key aspect of the Obamacare law on the whole.

Florida Judge Venison is the second judge to rule against the individual mandate and Florida is one of the 26 states that has brought suit against the administration over the Affordable Care Act aka Obamacare.

More on the original rulings and suits here.

Part #2- Obamacare Is Dead, Now It Just Has To Be Buried

.

House Of Representatives Passes Repeal Of Obamacare

The final vote was 245 to 189 with Democrats' Boren, McIntyre and Ross joining all Republican House members to pass the repeal of Obamacare.

The House voted on Wednesday to repeal the sweeping healthcare law enacted last year, as Republicans made good on a central campaign pledge and laid down the first major policy marker of their new majority.

The party-line vote was 245-189, as three Democrats joined all 242 Republicans in supporting repeal.

Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) said the healthcare law on the books would increase spending, raise taxes and eliminate jobs.

“Repeal means paving the way for better solutions that will lower the costs without destroying jobs or bankrupting our government," Boehner said in remarks on the floor before the vote.

“Let’s stop payment on this check before it can destroy more jobs or put us into a deeper hole.”

The vote to roll back the president’s signature domestic achievement of the 111th Congress just 10 months after its passage underscores the deep divisions that still surround the new law. But whether House action will signal the beginning of a rapid dismantling of the healthcare overhaul or serve merely as a historical footnote remains to be seen.

As was explained in yesterday's piece, the Democratically controlled Senate, led by Harry Reid, has already refused to even bring the bill to the floor of the Senate for a vote.

The previous update on Obamacare repeal (linked above) also showed that six more states have joined in the lawsuits against Obama and Democrats health care law, bringing the total to 26 states now suing.

NRO has a good piece worth the couple minutes it will take to read the whole thing, but I will highlight the reason this House vote to repeal Obamacare is more than just "symbolic" as liberal media and Democrats would like people to believe.

The argument that the repeal effort is meaningless is offered in bad faith. Everyone knew that Pres. George W. Bush would veto funding for embryonic-stem-cell funding, but no one — not even we — said Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi was therefore wasting our time in advocating it. Moreover, in our constitutional system of government, the House and Senate often take positions that are opposed by the other chamber, and presidents quite regularly send proposals to Congress that are thought to be “dead on arrival.” That does not make them unimportant. The president and his allies want to create the perception that Obamacare is now a settled matter, and that Republicans should get over it. Passage by the House of full repeal makes it abundantly clear that Obamacare is far from a settled matter. That’s a crucial message to send to the public, to employers, to the states, and to participants in the health sector, as they make decisions about what is likely to happen with Obamacare in coming years.

The repeal vote is also an important statement for political accountability. The president and his allies jammed Obamacare through Congress with an arrogance not seen in many years. They had large majorities in the 111th Congress, and they were determined to use it to pass a government-run health plan, come what may. At every crucial step, they chose to go it alone with Democrats rather than compromise in any meaningful way. To get the votes for passage, they bullied opponents, bought votes, and made an end run around the Senate after Scott Brown’s victory — all because they wanted to pass their partisan and government-heavy health-care plan without any compromise whatsoever. (Procedurally, the most outrageous Democratic maneuver was to change election law in Massachusetts so that an appointed senator, Paul Kirk, could put the bill over the top.)

The only remedy for such a brazen power play is to oust those who orchestrated it at the next opportunity, which the voters did in November, and to undo the offending legislation. The House vote is just the first step toward remedying this situation and giving the American people a reform plan built on consensus, not division.

This vote shows Republicans who campaigned heavily for the midterms last November by promising to do everything in their power to repeal and/or defund Obamacare, kept that pledge to those who rewarded them by voting to give them the biggest turnover of House seats in over 70 years.

The next step in what promises to be a long battle is being taken today according to The Hill:

Having voted as promised to roll back the Democrats' healthcare reform law, the new GOP majority is now faced with following through on the second part of its "repeal and replace" pledge.

Fresh off Wednesday night's vote in favor of repeal, the House will take up a resolution Thursday morning directing committees to develop alternatives to the reform law.

And the GOP chairmen of the House panels tasked with drafting those alternatives will offer an initial look, at an afternoon press conference, at their efforts.

The task will not be easy for Republicans as they have to attempt to keep the few popular portions and weed out the unpopular from the almost 2,000 page monstrosity the Democrats passed last March and they need to propose spending cuts to pay for the portions they keep as well.

Republicans in the House need to keep the public informed, be as transparent as possible, keep the majority of Americans that are opposed to Obamacare still, almost a year after passage, completely in the loop each step of the way.

Our Representatives in the House are there to represent the American people and yesterday's vote did just that and voters will remember come November 2012.

If there is any "symbolism" to the Obamacare repeal vote at all, it is that the House of Representatives, for the first time in a long time, is finally showing very publicly that they are representing the majority of Americans that elected them into the House last November.


[Update] Very interesting piece at RedState, involving Senate procedures which would make it possible for Republicans to keep Obamacare repeal alive in the Senate.

Headline "Repeal of ObamaCare in the Senate - How To Do It."

Go. Read.

.

Obamacare Repeal Updates: 26 States Now Suing Over Obamacare

[UPDATE]- January 31, 2011- Florida Judge becomes the second Judge to rule the individual mandate as unconstitutional and that Congress exceeded it's authority.

Story here. [End Update]


As the House of Representatives brings the Obamacare repeal debate to the floor, setting the scene for the House vote which will no doubt pass with a Republican majority in the House, the battle in the media, blogosphere and even the courts continues to rage across the country.

The House is expected to vote on the repeal and pass it today.

Headline news first shows that six more states have joined the 20 states already suing over Obamacare, bringing the total to 26 states, which is now more than half the country opposing Obamacare in the courts.

Six more states joined a lawsuit in Florida against President Obama's health care overhaul on Tuesday, meaning more than half of the country is challenging the law.

The announcement was made as House members in Washington, led by Republicans, debated whether to repeal the law.

The six additional states, all with Republican attorneys general, joined Florida and 19 others in the legal action, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi said.

"It sends a strong message that more than half of the states consider the health care law unconstitutional and are willing to fight it in court," she said in a statement.

The states claim the health care law is unconstitutional and violates people's rights by forcing them to buy health insurance by 2014 or face penalties.

Government attorneys have said the states do not have standing to challenge the law and want the case dismissed.

Lawsuits have been filed elsewhere. A federal judge in Virginia ruled in December that the insurance-purchase mandate was unconstitutional, though two other federal judges have upheld the requirement. It's expected the Supreme Court will ultimately have to resolve the issue.

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid is refusing to bring the House repeal bill to the floor of the Senate for a vote, once again pitting himself against the majority of Americans opposed to the Obamacare health law.

Interestingly, Reid tries to claim that he is not bringing it up because it has no chance of passing the Senate which has a small Democratic majority, but with 23 Democratic Senators up for reelection in 2012, that is debatable.

Reid’s office rejected the idea.

“Not only would repeal not pass, but according to a poll by AP over the weekend, three out of four people don’t want it to,” Reid spokesman Jon Summers said. “Why? Because full repeal means raising taxes on small businesses, reopening the Medicare donut hole, and putting insurance companies back in charge of your health care.”

Polling evidence actually shows that the majority of Americans are still opposed and the AP poll Reid is quick to mention is the only outlier claiming otherwise.

Recent polling:

Bloomberg finds 55 percent opposed with only 40 percent in favor of Obamacare.

ABC News/Washington Post finds 52 percent opposed with only 43 percent in favor of Obamacare.

CNN/Opinion Research shows 50 percent opposed with only 42 percent in favor of Obamacare.

Rasmussen shows 55 percent opposed with only 40 percent in favor of Obamacare.

Reid's cherry picking of one single outlier shows the desperation and fear he has of allowing a straight vote in the Senate, which would force Democratic Senators to publicly go up against the majority of Americans or pass the repeal law which would force Obama to veto it as he has already said he would.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor calls out Reid on his obvious misleading statements by issuing a public challenge to Reid "If Harry Reid is so confident that the repeal vote should die in the Senate then he should bring it up for a vote if he’s so confident he’s got the votes."

Cantor knows Reid cannot do that because then he would be forced to try to twist arms and force his Democratic Senators to commit political suicide once again over Obamacare.

A Wapo article breaks down more numbers which contradict Reid's statements.

...Some 45 percent of those polled support the law, and 50 percent oppose it, numbers that exactly match their averages in Post-ABC polls going back to August

2009.

The question of repeal is also addressed:

Those who do not support the law are split about evenly between advocating for its complete repeal (33 percent), a partial repeal (35 percent) and a wait-and-see approach (30 percent).

After the House passes the Obamacare repeal and the Senate, led by Reid, refuses to even bring it to the floor for a vote, then House Republicans will continue to try to repeal the most unpopular portions of the bill, continuously forcing Reid and Senate Democrats to publicly go up against the majority of Americans by refusing to bring those to the floor of the Senate as well.

House Republicans also hold the purse strings and have already stated they will not appropriate funds to the implementation of the most egregious parts of the Obamcare law.

For Republicans this vote, followup votes and refusing to fund anything the public does not like about Obamacare that is within their control, is a win/win situation politcally. Fighting for the majority of Americans and making it as public as possible will guarantee that Obamacare haunts Democrats in the Senate and Barack Obama all the way up to the 2012 elections.

When Republicans took won the largest gain of seats for a party in 70 years in the House of Representatives at midterm elections, they promised repealing Obamacare and/or defunding it in campaigns across the board and they are keeping that promise.

Conservatives by and large said, including myself, that we needed to make Democrats stand up and take responsibility over and over for going up against the majority of voters and show the constituents of this country who is fighting for what they want and who is blocking their wishes.

Harry Reid knows Republicans in the Senate only need a handful of Democrats votes to repeal Obamacare in full and start over by passing legislation that would keep the popular parts and weed out the unpopular parts and with so many Moderate Democrats in the Senate and vulnerable coming into 2012.

Reid also knows he would lose this fight in the Senate so he is refusing to even allow it a vote on the floor because then Barack Obama's head would be on the chopping block by having to publicly veto Obamacare repeal against the wishes of the American majority.

America is watching and all of this will be held against Democrats as a whole in 2012.


Related:

The Fix with "Five members to watch on health care repeal"

NYP with "The damage has already begun"

Repeal of ObamaCare can't come soon enough -- as several damaging provisions are set to take effect this year.

For starters, it has effectively stopped the construction of physician-owned hospitals throughout the country.

More:

Of course, patients may have trouble finding not just a hospital, but a doctor. A Physician's Foundation survey revealed that 40 percent of doctors plan to "drop out of patient care in the next one to three years." Sixty percent said ObamaCare will "compel them to close or significantly restrict their practices to certain categories of patients" -- typically those on Medicare or Medicaid.

Health reform will force many folks to give up their current insurance, too.

Still more:

Other measures kicking in are petty -- but punitive. For example, people can no longer use tax-free Health Savings Accounts on basic over-the-counter drugs. Instead, they must pay for a doctor's appointment -- and then get a prescription for a pricier pharmacist-dispensed drug.

Each of those are explained in detail, so head over and read.

.

Four House Democrats Join With Republicans In Rules Vote To Repeal Obamacare

With a 236 to 181 vote, with four Democrats crossing the aisle to vote with Republicans in the House of Representatives, a procedural vote passed the House on the rules of length and terms of the Obamacare repeal debate b before an expected Weds vote on the full repeal of Obama and Democrats health care law from March 2010.

Roll call found here on the House vote on the rules.



The four Democrats that crossed the aisle are:

Representative Dan Boren (OK), who is a member of the Blue Dog Coalition and who was one of the 39 Democrats in the House of Representatives who voted against Obamacare in November 2009 and again during the final vote in March 2010. In January of 2010 Boren also correctly predicted huge losses for Democrats in the November 2010 midterm elections.

Representative Larry Kissell (N.C.)voted for the rules passage, according to the House Final Vote roll callpage, was also a no vote on the final passage of the Obamacare aka Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in March but recently was reported as stating he would not vote for a repeal when it comes up in the House next week. His vote for the rules passage probably stems from his assertion that the repeal vote needs to be brought to the floor so that other issues can be dealt with following that vote.

Representative Mike McIntyre (N.C.) was another vote against Obamacare in March and has indicated his support for repeal on multiple occasions calling it a "financially- irresponsible plan".

Representative Mike Ross (AR), another centrist Democrat that voted against Obamacare in March 2010, saying that while he supported health care reform, the bill was "too big, too costly, and the people who send me to Washington to be their voice are opposed to them and this process." Ross also recently stated he would vote for the repeal itself as well, saying "I voted against it three times, so I don’t know why I would vote not to repeal it. It’s consistent with what I’ve done. It seems pretty simple to me."

The rules passed today for H.R. 2 aka Obamacare repeal law, will allow seven hours of debate with no amendments, on Tuesday January 11, 2011, resulting in a vote on Weds. January 12, 2011.

The two page repeal bill (PDF) can be found here and the text is as follows:

A BILL

To repeal the job-killing health care law and health care related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the "Repealing the Job- Killing Health Care Law Act".

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF THE JOB-KILLING HEALTH CARE LAW AND HEALTH CARE-RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2010.

(a) JOB-KILLING HEALTH CARE LAW.

—Effective as of the enactment of Public Law 111–148, such Act is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.

(b) HEALTH CARE-RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2010.

—Effective as of the enactment of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–152), title I and subtitle B of title II of such Act are repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such title or subtitle, respectively, are restored or revived as if such title and subtitle had not been enacted.

Reported in a previous post, Barack Obama has publicly threatened a veto should the bill pass the House of Representatives and the Democratically Controlled Senate, despite overwhelming public opposition by the majority of Americans to this law and support by Americans for the repeal of Obamacare. (Links to dozens of polling showing that provided here)

.

Obama Plays Right Into Republicans Hands By Issuing Veto Threat On Obamacare Repeal

Politically playing directly into Republican's hands, Barack Obama wades into the Obamacare repeal fight being publicly fought in Washington between House Republicans and Senate Democrats by issuing a veto threat should a repeal bill make it to his desk.

Is he worried that the 23 Senate Democrat that are up for reelection might actually vote to repeal Obamacare?

By The Numbers

Polling numbers, averaged by RCP from a variety of polling organizations, show that on average 53.4 percent of of Americans, Adults, Registered and/or likely voters (depending on which sample the individual pollster used per poll) are still opposed to Obama and Democrats' health care plan. An average of 40.4 percent in favor of Obamacare.

(Click image to enlarge)

If you follow the link to RCP and scroll down, you will see polls conducted at the time of the Obamacare passage, March 2010, and find the same type of opposition to the package as a whole, in every poll except one outlier published on March 22, 2010 by USA/Gallup who produced and published another poll ranging from March 26-28, 2010 which again showed public opposition to the passage of Obamacare.

(Click image to enlarge)

It is undisputed that Obamacare was passed into law against the opposition of the majority of Americans, as the polls continuously showed.

It is also undisputed that the majority of Americans are still opposed to Obamacare.

What has been disputed consistently by far left liberals is that individual portions of Obamacare are popular and liked, but those individual portions were not written into a bill and passed, they were part of the whole unpopular 1,900+ page bill that was opposed.

Midterm Outcome

Repealing Obamacare was the focus of midterm campaigns for Republicans across the board. Republicans took over 60 seats in the House of Representatives to win control of the House, the largest victory for a party in midterm elections in over 70 years. Republicans took a six seat gain in the Senate where only a third of the seats were in play. Republicans won control of hundreds of state level legislative seats as well.

Repealing Obamacare

In keeping one of the promises made to voters during the midterm campaigns, Republicans have announced that on January 12, 2011, the House of Representatives will vote to repeal Obamacare.

By The Numbers On Repealing Obamacare

According to Gallup results published today, January 7, 2011, a plurality of Americans, 46 percent, want their Representative in Congress to vote for the repeal of Obamacare, with 40 percent want their Representative to vote to let the law stand, 12 percent having no opinion. The margin of error being +/- 4 points.

According to Rasmussen, 60 percent of likely voters want Obamacare repealed, with 36 percent opposed to repealing it.

The difference in the bottom line figures is Gallup used Americans and Rasmussen used likely voters.

Either way, the plurality and/or the majority want Obamacare repealed.

The Scene Is Set For The Public Showdown

When the announcements came that Republicans had the two page bill ready to vote on, Senate Democrats led by Harry Reid warned Republicans in the House of Representatives to not bother passing a repeal Obamacare law because they would block it, to which John Boehner, the new Speaker of the House, responded by letter:

Senators Reid, Durbin, Schumer, Murray and Stabenow:

Thank you for reminding us – and the American people – of the backroom deal that you struck behind closed doors with ‘Big Pharma,’ resulting in bigger profits for the drug companies, and higher prescription drug costs for 33 million seniors enrolled in Medicare Part D, at a cost to the taxpayers of $42.6 billion.

The House is going to pass legislation to repeal that now. You’re welcome.

- Speaker-Designate John Boehner’s Press Office

Republicans in control of the House knew the Senate, which is still controlled by Democrats, would block the passage of Obamacare repeal, but they did promise those that elected them that would do everything in their power to repeal it and if repeal didn't work, they would defund it by not appropriating any money toward the implementation of Obamacare.

On January 12, 2011, if all goes according to plan, they will fulfill that campaign promise and force Senate Democrats to publicly go up against the majority of Americans still opposed to the new law and still in favor of a repeal of the law.

Presidential Veto

If Senate Democrats do not block the passage of the repeal of Obamacare, which is a possibility because 23 Democratic Senate seats are in play in the 2012 elections, it would then go to the President's desk for a veto or be signed.

Reports in the news today show that Barack Obama, playing right into Republicans hands, has waded into the battle and threatened a presidential veto if the bill hits his desk, again very publicly setting himself up against the majority of Americans opposed to Obamacare and in favor of repeal.

2012 Elections

Chances for the White House and 23 Democratic Senate seats staying in Democrats control all depends on the electorate and in November 2010, the midterms, the public made a statement about how Washington has been run and that they have long memories and will punish politicians that refuse to represent them as they were elected to do.

Seems to me that logically, setting oneself up against the majority of Americans is a very bad way to go about asking those same Americans to reelect you.

I have maintained and I still maintain that Obamacare will be one of the top issues of the 2012 elections. If that stands true, then that does not bode well for Barack Obama or Democrats in the Senate.

.

GOP House Obamacare Repeal Language: Text

The two page PDF found here and below is the text of the Obamacare repeal bill the House of Representatives will be voting on January 12, 2011 if all goes according to plan.

A BILL

To repeal the job-killing health care law and health care related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the "Repealing the Job- Killing Health Care Law Act".

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF THE JOB-KILLING HEALTH CARE LAW AND HEALTH CARE-RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2010.

(a) JOB-KILLING HEALTH CARE LAW.

—Effective as of the enactment of Public Law 111–148, such Act is repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not been enacted.

(b) HEALTH CARE-RELATED PROVISIONS IN THE HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION RECONCILIATION ACT OF 2010.

—Effective as of the enactment of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111–152), title I and subtitle B of title II of such Act are repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such title or subtitle, respectively, are restored or revived as if such title and subtitle had not been en18
acted.

.

Obamacare- Republicans Should Force Democrats To Vote With The People Or Against Them

From GOP committee on rules, where items will be posted for transparency allowing the public to see what the GOP in the House of Representatives will have on their agenda:

To be considered during the week of January 10, 2011

• H.R. ___, Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act

• H.Res. ___, Instructing certain committees to report legislation replacing the job-killing health care law.

News reports show Republicans in the House of Representatives are expected to hold a vote to repeal Obamacare on January 12, 2011 and the expected warning from Senate Democrats, who still control the Senate, is "don't bother", and "we will block it".

First- Republicans campaigned heavily on repealing Obamacare and/or defunding it at every opportunity if the Senate doesn't pass the House's repeal or if Obama uses his veto power should the Senate actually pass a repeal bill (highly doubtful).

Second- Obamacare aka Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was opposed at the time of passage by a plurality or majority of Americans, whether pollsters used likely voters or simply adults. (Scroll RCP link to see earlier polling from a variety of organizations)

Third- A majority of Americans continue to oppose the Obamacare law, as a whole. On average, 52.8 percent oppose Obama and Democrats' health care law with 40.5 percent favoring it, leaving a spread of 12.3 percent against.

Fourth- Recent polling shows the majority (60 percent)of likely voters want the Obamacare law repealed.

Fifth- Other polling shows that between those that prefer a full repeal and those that want portions repealed, still fall into the majority when added together.

During the debate before Obamacare was signed into law, the liberal left and Democratic politicians continued to cherry pick items from the bill to try to convince the public that polling showed those individual issues were popular.

The problem was and still is, the bill was not passed in pieces and popular smaller fixes to our health care system. It was turned into a monstrosity of almost 2,000 pages long chalk full of unpopular mandates and regulations.

In there lies the problem for Republicans who favor repeal but an even larger problem for Democrats who will fight against any repeal.

Republicans promised to try for a full repeal. Democrats controlling the Senate, or Obama with his veto pen, will not allow that, but this original vote on full repeal will put everybody on record for the voters, in the public eye and transparent on who is fighting for what the majority of Americans want and who is fighting against what Americans want.

After this initial vote, Republicans can, should and probably will start attacking individual parts of the law and target them for repeal votes as well, again, forcing Democrats in the Senate where 23 of them will be up for reelection in 2012 to take a public stand for or against the majority of American voters.

Barack Obama also is up for reelection in 2012 and Republicans need to force him to take a public stand on those same unpopular issues.

To that end, Representative Steve King (R.-Iowa) believes Republicans should include language that prohibits any funding for implementation of Obamacare in literally every appropriations bill that passes the House of Representatives this year.

This would force Barack Obama and Senate Democrats to continuously go on record in favor of something the American people oppose.

Under King’s plan, congressional Republicans would first force a straight up-or-down vote on repealing Obamacare in the House and Senate, but then follow that up by inserting language into all appropriations bills saying that no money from the bill can be used to implement the federal health-care program President Obama signed last year.

“So, my proposal is this then: Each appropriations bill that comes through, we need to put language in it that prohibits any of the dollars that are appropriated in those funds--and I would add to that any funds heretofore appropriated--from being used to implement or enforce Obamacare,” said King.

King acknowledged that his approach would first lead to a showdown with a Senate that has a Democratic majority and is still led by Sen. Harry Reid (D.-Nev.), who helped enact the Obamacare health-care legislation last year.

“I think that would be a wonderful thing to watch,” said King. “With all of the Senate Democrats that are up for election in 2012, they will have some difficult decisions to make and I think a lot of them already know how they will be if confronted with that eventuality.”

If the Republican-majority House held the line against the Democrat-majority Senate and did not allow any funding for Obamacare in the appropriations bill passed in the coming year, the issue would land on Obama’s desk. As president, he would be faced with a choice of either signing bills that defund Obamacare but fund other government functions, or vetoing bills that fund other government functions because they cut-off Obamacare.

“At some point those bills start to reach President Obama’s desk and then he has to decide whether he’s going to accept the language that prohibits the implementation of Obamacare,” said King. “That’s where the crunch comes.”

Democrats across the board saw in the November midterms, from losing the largest number of seats for a party in the House of Representatives in over 70 years, to watching their majority in the Senate shrink to seeing massive turnovers in state legislative chambers in favor of the GOP, what happens when they ignore the will of their constituents and pass laws opposed by the majority of those constituents.

One has to wonder if they heard the message voters overwhelmingly told them or if over the next two years they are willing to offer Republicans a replay of those results.

Putting Democrats on record consistently throughout the next two years and refusing to allow any appropriation funds to go toward Obamacare until the unpopular aspects of that law can be repealed and/or changed, will fulfill one of the major promises Republicans campaigned on and is smart politically looking forward to 2012.

Voters have shown they remember and they do not appreciate being ignored and in November 2012, Obamacare may very well be the final nail in their coffins and the end to many Senate Democrats' political careers.

.

Obamacare's High Risk Pools Are A Bust And Financially Unsustainable

Once again Obamacare news and it isn't good. Wapo soft pedals it in their usual fashion and added together with all the other Obamacare busts, shows the public's opposition originally was well founded and their continued opposition grounded in reality over hype.

An early feature of the new health-care law that allows people who are already sick to get insurance to cover their medical costs isn't attracting as many customers as expected.

In the meantime, in at least a few states, claims for medical care covered by the "high-risk pools" are proving very costly, and it is an open question whether the $5 billion allotted by Congress to start up the plans will be sufficient.

Federal health officials contend the new insurance plans, designed solely for people who already are sick, are merely experiencing growing pains. It will take time to spread the word that they exist and to adjust prices and benefits so that the plans are as attractive as possible, the officials say.

A two-page piece from Wapo which leaves gaping questions about one of the more popular aspects of the Obamacare aka health care law in which the writer doesn't even bother to address the variety of other failures that have already shown themselves in the massive bill which Democratic politicians pushed through both house's of Congress and Barack Obama signed into law.

Ed Morrissey twitters "If a defense contractor failed to deliver 97.9% of its goals, would WaPo report it like it reported on O-care today? http://bit.ly/fhNYqp"

Following the link, Ed points out over at Hot Air:

The failure of ObamaCare’s Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan has been known for weeks, at least to readers of the Wall Street Journal and Hot Air. The Washington Post catches up to the WSJ a mere 45 days later with this report from Amy Goldstein on the failure of PECIP to attract the 375,000 people the White House and Congress claimed needed the help of subsidies to get health-care coverage. Even with the program falling 97% short of its stated goal, it’s still going to cost more than Congress allocated anyway

This, on top of other Obamacare failures, along with the most recent news that Obama has used regulation to impose the end-of-life planning portion of Obamacare which was dropped from the health care bill when a firestorm was created after Sarah Palin pointed out the likelihood of "Death Panels", shows a bill, a piece of law passed with only Democratic support by a Democratically controlled Congress and a Democratic president against the continued opposition of the majority of Americans...is a failure already.

I said this the other day in my piece titled "Death Panel By Obama Regulation Hidden From The Public Deliberately":

The House of Representatives will be controlled by the GOP starting in January and they will control the purse strings and since repeal of the entire obamacare bill is impossible as long as the Senate is run by Harry Reid and Democrats (although much less control now after the midterm elections) and the White House is controlled by Barack Obama who would veto any such total repeal, the GOP in the House must defund every portion of Obamacare they can until the political situation changes to the point where we can undo Obamacare totally.

Choke it, starve it, defund it GOP... we expect it, we demand it and we are watching to make sure you make it happen.

I stand by those statements.

.

First Funding Fight Chokes Funds From Obamacare

In what is expected to be a long hard fought war in repealing the most egregious portions of Obamacare, the first battle has been fought when the $1.2 trillion omnibus bill was scrapped in favor of a continuing resolution (CR) to fund the government until March 4, 2011, which is after the GOP takes control of the House of Representatives.

The CR details can be found here in a three page press release from the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations.

Below are highlights of the Senate amendment to H.R. 3082, a Continuing Resolution (C.R.) that would allow continued government operations through March 4, 2011. Cloture was filed on H.R. 3082 on Sunday, December 19, 2010, with a cloture vote expected to take place Tuesday, December 21, 2010. The current CR also expires on December 21, 2010.

Continuing Resolution Summary

Ongoing programs: Under the CR, funding would continue at FY 2010 enacted levels for most programs. In total, the CR would provide funding at a rate approximately $1.16 billion over the FY 2010 level. Extended Authorizations and Other Actions: The CR extends authorizations or allows for continuous normal operations through March 4, 2011, for certain programs that would otherwise expire or be severely disrupted.....

The Wall Street Journal provides details of what is not funded in this CR:

A Senate deal to fund the federal government until early March doesn't include money to enact the health-care overhaul or stepped up regulation of Wall Street, boosting Republican efforts to curb key elements of President Barack Obama's domestic agenda.

In March the true battle begins, especially in regards to choking the funding for Obamacare, to which Republicans have vowed to do everything in their power to repeal and/or replace the most unpopular aspects of it.

With public opposition still strong and still growing, a majority of Americans according to every poll conducted, against Obamacare, this is a fight Republicans relish because as with the passage against the opposition of the majority of voters, refusing to fund it puts the GOP squarely on the side of American voters.

This is perhaps the only option for the GOP as long as Obama is President and the Senate is still controlled by Democrats.

Any move to actually repeal it would not make it through the Senate and if it did, Obama would surely veto it since he considers it one of his "signature" pieces.

.

John Boehner Files Brief With The Court Against Obamacare

Top of the Ticket reports that John Boehner, the soon-to-be- speaker of the House has weighed in on the Obamacare lawsuit filed by 20 states against the constitutionality of the new Obamacare law, Specifically "that the mandate has distorted the Constitution to vastly expand congressional power and diminish accountability to American voters."

The crux of the lawsuit is that the individual mandate, the new federal requirement that every individual acquire health insurance, is unconstitutional.

About-to-be-House Speaker John Boehner has now added his friend of the court brief to Judge Roger Vinson's bulging file folders in Pensacola. Boehner's brief joins those by Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and others.

Previously a Florida judge had ruled the lawsuit could proceed and the next scheduled court hearing on the issue is set for December 16, 2010.

[Update] Unless the courts put a stop to the individual mandate or Republicans manage to somehow get it repealed, Mass. and the new horror stories coming out of the state will be what the whole of American is looking at in 2014.

The state’s health insurance connector — the highly touted agency that aims to bring cheap medical care to the masses — has turned into a legal pit bull by aggressively going after a growing number of Bay Staters who say they can’t afford mandated insurance — or the penalties imposed for not having it.

The Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority is cracking down on more than 3,000 residents who are fighting state fines, and has even hired a private law firm to force the health insurance scofflaws to pay penalties of up to $2,000 a year.

Doesn't that just make you feel all warm and fuzzy?

.

ObamaCare's pre-existing condition program is a bust.

The title is the sub header from the Wall Street Journal piece explaining the undelivered results of the $5 billion dollar program overseen by Obama's Health and Human Services Department (HHS) to create their own insurance plans to cover people with pre-existing conditions.

HHS claimed the justification for the $5 billion dollar expenditure would be 375,000 signed up in the first year with 400,000 more every year.

The number that signed up? 8,011.

Mr. Obama declared at the time that “uninsured Americans who’ve been locked out of the insurance market because of a pre-existing condition will now be able to enroll in a new national insurance pool where they’ll finally be able to purchase quality, affordable health care—some for the very first time in their lives.”

So far that statement accurately describes a single person in North Dakota. Literally, one person has signed up out of 647,000 state residents. Four people have enrolled in West Virginia. Things are better in Minnesota, where Mr. Obama has rescued 15 out of 5.2 million, and also in Indiana—63 people there. HHS did best among the 24.7 million Texans. Thanks to ObamaCare, 393 of them are now insured.

States had the option of designing their own pre-existing condition insurance with federal dollars in lieu of the HHS plan, and 27 chose to do so. But they haven’t had much more success. Combined federal-state enrollment is merely 8,011 nationwide as of November 1, according to HHS.

Take it away Ed:

The Obama administration and its allies in the Nancy Pelosi Congress revamped one-sixth of the American economy, created new federal mandates, and created chaos in system that worked for the vast majority of Americans, just to deal with eight thousand people? Perhaps they should have tested the issue by creating the program separately first and determining whether the demand required a complete overhaul of a health-care system that mainly worked for the rest of us, instead of arrogating to themselves the task of dictating the shape of a market they clearly don’t understand.

Classic Values Told ya so!!

In today's fierce moral urgency of change news, it turns out the market for government health insurance for the uninsured is about 50 times smaller than Obamacare proponents told us it would be. Of course, we opponents of Obamacare were arguing last year this problem was overblown, and it appears in retrospect even our most parsimonious estimates were vastly too generous:

A country in economic turmoil and a Democratically controlled White House, House of Representatives and Senate manages to show an ineptness, sheer incompetence, and a lack of understanding of an industry that they want to take over.

Remember, this is just the beginning.....

This monstrosity of a law, must be repealed and since Republicans who now control the House cannot repeal it without cooperation from the Democratically controlled Senate and even if they could would face a certain veto from the Obama White House, then Republicans must refuse to fund as much of it as possible until it can be repealed and replaced with something clean and small that actually has a chance to work.

.