Joe Wilson Vindicated In 2009 Shout Of 'You Lie' At Barack Obama

Some might remember when Republican Representative Joe Wilson shouted out the words "You Lie" at Barack Obama in 2009 in the middle of Obama's national address when Obama claimed that his Obamacare would not cover illegal immigrants.



Well, recent facts vindicate Joe Wilson.

But Wilson is claiming some vindication after the Health and Human Services Department awarded millions to "migrant and seasonal farm worker" health care -- a spokeswoman in the department was cited last week saying patients would not be asked about immigration status and a department official confirmed Monday that the centers receiving the grant money must offer primary care to "all residents" in a given area.



Wilson, on his campaign website, declared the funding announcement proved him right. Though most farm workers are here legally, the Pew Hispanic Center estimates that about a quarter of them are undocumented.



"It is inevitable that they will serve illegal aliens," Wilson said. "The president specifically promised the American people that 'Obamacare' would not cover those who are here illegally. He misled all of us."

.

Appeals Court Rules That Individual Mandate in ObamaCare Law Is Unconstitutional

Updates added at the end, including a link to the ruling from the 11th circuit as well as a scribd link because the 11th circuit site is being troublesome due to a large volume of traffic would be my guess.



Breaking news shows that the individual mandate portion of Obamacare has been ruled unconstitutional by an appeals court.



Washington Examiner:

The three-judge panel that made the ruling was comprised of two Democrats, so this will be hard for the Obama administration to dismiss as the work of a lone activist conservative judge.

This follows a far different ruling from the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in June which ruled it as constitutional.



I will provide links to today's ruling and news reports when they become available.



This ruling comes as a majority of Americans continue to register as opposed to Obamacare.



The final decision on the constitutionality of Obamacare will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.



[Update] The news reports begin.



Reuters: Appeals court rules against Obama healthcare law

An appeals court ruled on Friday that President Barack Obama's healthcare law requiring Americans to buy healthcare insurance or face a penalty was unconstitutional, a blow to the White House.

U.S. appeals court in Georgia is the latest to rule that individual mandate in Obama’s health care law is unconstitutional.



More from Business Insider:

The court said that Congress cannot "mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die," according to Phillip Klein of the Washington Examiner.



The section of the bill made it illegal for an individual not to have health insurance, and is one of the most contested parts of the law passed in March 2010. Twenty-six state have filed suit to have the law overturned.

WSJ:

A divided U.S. appeals court in Atlanta ruled Friday that a key provision of last year's federal health-care overhaul is unconstitutional, siding with a group of 26 states that challenged the law.



The 2-1 ruling marks the Obama administration's biggest defeat to date in the multifront legal battle over the health-care law.

.



11th Circuit concludes:

the individual mandate contained in the Act exceeds Congress’s enumerated commerce power. This conclusion is limited in scope. The power that Congress has wielded via the Commerce Clause for the life of this country remains undiminished. Congress may regulate commercial actors. It may forbid certain commercial activity. It may enact hundreds of new laws and federally-funded programs, as it has elected to do in this massive 975- page Act. But what Congress cannot do under the Commerce Clause is mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die.



It cannot be denied that the individual mandate is an unprecedented exercise of congressional power. As the CBO observed, Congress “has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.” CBO MANDATE MEMO, supra p.115, at 1. Never before has Congress sought to regulate commerce by compelling non-market participants to enter into commerce so that Congress may regulate them. The statutory language of the mandate is not tied to health care consumption—past, present, or in the future. Rather, the mandate is to buy insurance now and forever. The individual mandate does not wait for market entry.

Question: Since Democrats deliberately removed the severability clause in Obamacare, then why would the whole law not be declared unconstitutional?



A severability clause is meant to insure that if one part is ruled against the other parts could remain, but Democrats took that out, so the 11th circuit should have ruled the whole kit and kaboodle unconstitutional.



[Update] Page is down, probably from massive traffic, but this URL is where the ruling will be showing. (PDF)



Scribd link to ruling found here. (304 pages)



[Update] The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) gave Fox a statement:

"Small-business owners across the country have been vindicated by the 11th Circuit's ruling that the individual mandate in the health-care law is unconstitutional," said Karen Harned, executive director of the group's legal center.



"The court reaffirmed what small businesses already knew - there are limits to Congress' power. And the individual mandate, which compels every American to buy health insurance or pay a fine, is a bridge too far," she said.

[Update] Forbes: The decision, penned by Chief Judge Joel Dubina and Circuit Judge Frank Hull, found that "the individual mandate contained in the Act exceeds Congress's enumerated commerce power."



"What Congress cannot do under the Commerce Clause is mandate that individuals enter into contracts with private insurance companies for the purchase of an expensive product from the time they are born until the time they die"



.

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

.

House Passes Budget Bill To Fund Government With Amendments To Defund Obamacare

The House of Representatives passed a stopgap budget measure to continue funding government for the rest of the fiscal year with a vote of 235 to 189.

This included over $60 billion in spending cuts, the single largest spending cut in modern history.

It feel short of the $100 billion in spending cuts Republicans attempted to get passed, but a portion of the year's spending levels was already set with the previously passed stopgap measure from Democrats back in December, currently set to expire March 4, 2011..


NYT reports:

The House early Saturday approved a huge package of spending cuts, slashing more than $60 billion from domestic programs, foreign aid, and even some military projects, as the new Republican majority made good on its pledge to turn the grassroots fervor of the November elections into legislative action to shrink the size and scope of government.

House Republicans have been busy and have passed amendments in that bill that prevents funding for Obamacare aka Affordable Care Act that was passed last March through a party line votes from a Democratically controlled Congress and Senate.

The three amendments the House passed today are:

—an amendment from health appropriations subcommittee Chair Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) blocks 2011 funding for the health and labor departments to implement the healthcare reform law;

—an amendment from Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) blocks all federal funding for the law; and

—an amendment from Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-Mo.) bars the Internal Revenue Service from using funds to enforce the law's individual mandate requiring Americans to have insurance by 2014. Two federal courts have ruled that the mandate is unconstitutional. (Source)

The Senate which is still Democratically controlled will try to add the funding for Obamacare back into the bill, which will lead to a showdown as Republicans have made it clear they will not back down on defunding Obamacare since the repeal measure they passed through the House of Representatives never passed in the Senate.

With 23 Senate Democrats up for reelection in 2012 and Obamacare still opposed by the majority of Americans, should the vote be allowed for the bill as passed down to the Senate, it is more than just possible for some vulnerable Democrats to cross party lines and vote for defunding Obamacare.

Should they do that, Obama would have to veto it or see his signature legislation fail due to lack of funds to implement it.

If Democrats force a government shutdown because they refuse to pass the stopgap budget bill which would allow government to continue to be funded after the Continuing Resolution (CR) presently funding government expires in March, expect a highly public campaign by Republicans to show they passed the CR and Senate Democrats and/or Barack Obama stalled it.

Political pundits aside, what I saw this morning is what every day American voters are seeing.

Each and every news channel I turned on, despite any spin, announced the Republican controlled House of Representatives passed a budget, which will fund government until the next fiscal year as well as providing over 60 billion in spending cuts.

Those same American voters also know the House is controlled by Republicans, the Senate controlled by Democrats and the White House resident is a Democrat.

That is what people that do not follow politics closely know and are seeing today.

What they see next is up to Harry Reid, but if government shuts down because the Senate or Obama won't pass the CR, who do you think they will blame come November 2012?

.

Obama's New Approval Lows: Taxes, Deficit, Economy And Healthcare

The good news for Barack Obama in the latest Gallup findings is that he holds a plurality of approval on Foreign Affairs, 48 percent approve with 45 percent disapproving, handling of Egypt 47/32, Afghanistan 46/45 and Energy 43/42.

The bad news is the majority of Americans disapprove of his handling of Taxes, 54 percent disapproving with only 42 percent approving, Healthcare 56/40, Economy 60/37 and Deficit 68/27, bringing the issue of the deficit to his highest disapproval rating to date.

Click image to enlarge

Plurality being "more than" without hitting a majority (50 percent or higher)

Majority being 50 percent of higher.

Andrew Malcolm from Top of the Ticket:

Apparently, Obama's State of the Union vocabulary switch from "spending" to "investing" failed to fool even fellow Democrats.

It is telling that even during the time when Obama's approval seemed to be bouncing back after the tax deal with Republicans, even his best approval rating hasn't hit a majority.

Worth noting these figures are before Obama releases his 2012 budget proposal on Friday.

.

PolitiFact Declares Obama A Liar For His Comment "I Didn't Raise Taxes Once'

PolitiFact can't even carry Obama's water on this one and the Truth-O-Meter rates Obama's statement from an interview on superbowl Sunday with Bill O'Reilly, where he said "I didn't raise taxes once", as completely false.

PolitiFact goes on to show examples of where Obama did raise taxes.

The idea that Obama did not raise taxes is just plain wrong. He signed legislation raising taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products soon after taking office; that money goes to pay for children's health insurance programs. The law went into effect in 2009. He also signed the health care law, which includes taxes on indoor tanning that went into effect last year. (Regular PolitiFact readers will remember our fact-check of reality TV star Snooki and her complaint about the new tax last year.)

The new health care law also includes a tax on people who decide not to have health insurance, as an incentive for them to get coverage. The tax phases in gradually, starting in 2014. By 2016, the tax would be $695 per uninsured person up to a maximum of three times that amount, or $2,085. The law includes exemptions for people who can't find affordable insurance, and a few other special circumstances.

More significantly, the health care law includes new taxes on the wealthy, starting in 2013. Individuals who make more than $200,000 and couples that make more than $250,000 will see additional Medicare taxes of 0.9 percent. They will also, for the first time, have to pay Medicare taxes on their investment income at a 3.8 percent rate. (Current law is that all workers and employers split a 2.9 percent Medicare tax; the self-employed pay all of it.)

The small percentages may not sound like a lot, but those taxes are expected to generate $210 billion over 10 years, or just over half of all the new revenues the health care law authorizes. Other provisions include new fees on health insurance companies and prescription drug manufacturers, and a new tax on high-cost "Cadillac" health insurance plans.

PolitiFact concludes after showing evidence contradicting Obama's statement:

Obama said, "I didn't raise taxes once." But we've documented numerous instances when he has. He's has signed off on small tax cuts for most taxpayers, but that doesn't change the fact that he's also approved several tax increases. So we rate his statement False.

H/T Amy Proctor for the video below:



Amy also reminds people of Obama's words to Joe The Plumber, which completely contradicts his statement from the O'Reilly interview (shown above) that he doesn't wish to redistribute wealth:

PLUMBER : “Your new tax plan is gonna tax me more.”

OBAMA: “It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance at success, too. I think that when you spread the wealth around it’s good for everybody.”

Amy has a few more tidbits so make sure you head over there and read the entire thing and watch the vids.

Wall Street Journal adds more:

The Presidency is demanding, and with the Egypt mess and his other duties, perhaps Mr. Obama has forgotten some of his tax achievements. Allow us to refresh his memory. In his historic health-care bill, for example, there is the new $27 billion "fee" on drug companies that is already in effect. Next year, device manufacturers will get hit to the tune of $20 billion, and heath insurers will pay $60 billion starting in 2014—all of which are de facto tax increases because these collections will be passed on to consumers as higher costs. Of course, these are merely tax increases on business.

More damning: According to Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) "Over 90 percent of the dollar value of the tax cuts Obama signed into law are only temporary. 100 percent of the tax increases Obama signed into law are, however, permanent … Permanent changes to tax law signed by Obama amount to a net tax hike of $618.7 billion."

ATR rates Obama's statement as "blatantly false."

Barack Obama conducts an interview on Superbowl Sunday and lies right into the camera and O'Reilly did not follow up as he should have, by asking the obvious question on how Obama can claim he didn't raise taxes as his own lawyers are fighting in court on Obamacare claiming that Congress has the right to force Americans to purchase health insurance by calling that mandate a "tax."

Going beyond the basic functions of the individual mandate, there have been many questions raised about the policy itself. On one hand, President Obama said that he would not raise “any form of taxes” on anyone making less than $250,000 a year and almost everyone agrees that this “tax penalty” is indeed a tax. This is despite repeated and public claims from President Obama and his advisors that it is absolutely not a tax.

On the other hand however, since the passing of the bill, numerous states have sued the federal government claiming that it is unconstitutional for the government to force citizens to purchase health insurance. In their legal defense, the administration’s lawyers claim that the mandate does not violate the Constitution because it is a tax. This doubletalk from the Obama administration has been going on since the start of the Obamacare debate.

NYT:

In a brief defending the law, the Justice Department says the requirement for people to carry insurance or pay the penalty is “a valid exercise” of Congress’s power to impose taxes.

Congress can use its taxing power “even for purposes that would exceed its powers under other provisions” of the Constitution, the department said. For more than a century, it added, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can tax activities that it could not reach by using its power to regulate commerce.

While Congress was working on the health care legislation, Mr. Obama refused to accept the argument that a mandate to buy insurance, enforced by financial penalties, was equivalent to a tax.

“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program “This Week.”

O'Reilly missed his shot at cornering Obama and forcing him to either admit the individual mandate is a tax thereby contradicting his own previous statements or declare it is not a tax which would blow his lawyers' arguments in court over the issue.

Bad on O'Reilly!!

Obama must think Americans are stupid and gullible if he thinks they will believe his words "I didn't raise taxes once" over the truth of his actions.

I guess in 2012 we will see if he is right or not about the gullibility of the voting public.

.

Obamacare News: Vulnerable Senate Democrats May Push Roll Back Of Individual Mandate

Perhaps seeing the writing on the wall with two Federal judges now ruling that the individual mandate portion of Obamacare aka Affordable Care Act, unconstitutional, with one ruling that due to a lack of severability the whole Obamacare law must be declared void, a handful of Senate Democrats are now looking for a way to roll back that part of the law.

Doesn't hurt that the Democrats in question, Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Jon Tester of Montana, are all up for reelection in 2012.

Harry Reid has 53 Democratic votes in the Senate and if he loses these four and perhaps more, then Republicans could very well get a simply majority on certain issues, especially issues such as Obamacare to which the majority of the public still opposes as a whole.

That isn't all though.

The Politico:

And it’s not just health care. The senators are prepared to break with the White House on a wide range of issues: embracing deeper spending cuts, scaling back business regulations and overhauling environmental rules.

Obamacare has been an albatross around the necks of Democrats with many believing the trouncing or as Obama phrased it, the shallacking, the Democrats suffered in November which cost them six seats in the Senate and the largest gains seen for a party in the House as Republicans won control of the House of Representatives, was partly due to Obamacare and how Democrats and Obama jammed the law through against the opposition of Americans.

No doubt vulnerable Senate Democrats will still have that albatross around their necks in the 2012 elections, with each vote against repeal being used in campaigns against them.

Whether they work with Republicans in repealing the most egregious parts of Obamacare because they see the writing on the wall and know the courts may very well rule against the Obama administration or whether they are doing this to simply save their Senate seats, this is an opportunity to start dismantling as much of Obamacare as possible.

Then if Obama vetoes any legislation that hits his desk which would do just that, that albatross will then be hanging on his neck, visibly, to be used against him in his reelection bid in 2012.

And it will be.

.

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.

.

Note To Dems: Telegraphing A Punch Makes It Less Effective

Any boxer will tell you that if you telegraph your punch at your opponent you give them time to duck, weave and counter punch.

Over the last two years Republicans have been able to drive media messages and Democrats have, admittedly failed at the public messaging for things such as Obamacare, the Stmulus package, Cap and Trade and much of that has been blamed for the severe losses Democrats suffered during the midterm elections.

I see a piece at the liberal The Plum Line which shows Democrats just didn't get it, they still do not understand how to message effectively and once again they are telegraphing their moves leaving Republicans an abundance of time to counter.

Not to mention picking their battles.

Republicans nailed the Obamacare battle early on and the public stayed opposed, by an overwhelming majority throughout the whole public debate and to this day, each and every poll shows the majority of Americans still opposed to Obamacare.

Democrats have set out to stage a "title" for the Obamacare repeal bill. A repeal that once again has the support of the plurality in some cases (Gallup) and majority of Americans in others (Rasmussen), and instead of a news conference with hard and fast interviews following it slamming the name into the public eye quickly, what do they do?

They are letting bloggers trickle the "title", taking any possible sting out of the bite before the repeal is even voted on in the House of Representatives.

"The Patient's Rights Repeal Act."

At a House Dem leadership meeting last week, Dem leaders decided that this is the phrase they will officially use to brand the House GOP's push to repeal health reform, aides tell me.

With House Republicans set to press forward with repeal next week, the idea behind the Dem talking point is to emphasize what repeal would take away from you -- and to position the plight of the patient in the center of this battle.

Dems are gearing up for a major campaign against repeal, in hopes that it will give them another crack at selling the American public on the law by highlighting its most popular provisions and arguing that repeal would do away with them.

Hoping that they get "another crack" at selling Obamacare to the public? Two years of public debate and the law is still just as unpopular. They lost that battle, that ship has sailed, yet they are once again picking a fight where they already took a massive knockout punch.

That is their first mistake but it gets better.

Where do I start with this.... okay, back to the boxing analogy. A fighter doesn't telegraph a punch but they also do not throw a punch when they are flat on their asses on the floor after having been knocked down.

(Click image to enlarge)

Head on over to the RCP site and scroll down to see the polling down for the last year.

That folks is a knockout punch and the fighter that got knocked out is still swinging from the floor and looking like a fool flailing around on the mat.

I am almost embarrassed for them.


Related:

House to hold delayed vote on healthcare repeal next week

.

CBO Admits That Repealing Obamacare Would Reduce Net Spending By $540 Billion

Well Well Well, all morning I have seen the left try to highlight a portion of the latest CBO report which stated that repealing Obamcare would increase the deficit by $230 billion through 2021.

A new more detailed report is due to be released over at the CBO's Director's Blog which will clarify a few things.

A letter from the Congressional Budget Office's Associate Director for Legislative Affairs, Edward "Sandy" Davis, shows that repealing the national health care law would actually reduce net spending by $540 billion in the ten year period from 2012 through 2021. Also that the $230 billion increase in the deficit would be the result from taxes not being raised on Americans.

We have been asked to provide the revenue and direct spending components of that total. Extrapolating the estimated budgetary effects of the original health care legislation and accounting for the effects of subsequent legislation, CBO anticipates that enacting H.R. 2 would probably yield, for the 2012-2021 period, a reduction in revenues in the neighborhood of $770 billion and a reduction in outlays in the vicinity of $540 billion, plus or minus the effects of forthcoming technical and economic changes to CBO’s and JCT’s projections.

CBO will post a Director’s blog with this information on the CBO website shortly. Please let me know if you have any questions.

In other words, the $230 billion difference would be monies saved the tax payer because the $770 billion would have been from TAXES levied against Americans.

Democrats solid solution to their overspending is always to tax Americans to pay for it. Then when they cannot raise taxes they accuse the Republicans of raising the deficit?

In the eyes of the left revenues equals taxes.

Ask yourself, how the CBO could assume paying a debt with taxes not even collected yet, then turn around and say by not collecting those taxes, would increase the deficit?

AmSpec explains:

The Congressional Budget Office, in an email to Capitol Hill staffers obtained by the Spectator, has said that repealing the national health care law would reduce net spending by $540 billion in the ten year period from 2012 through 2021. That number represents the cost of the new provisions, minus Medicare cuts. Repealing the bill would also eliminate $770 billion in taxes. It's the tax hikes in the health care law (along with the Medicare cuts) which accounts for the $230 billion in deficit reduction.

'Nuff said.

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)

.