ObamaCare: What You Should Know (and Why We Need to Nullify) | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's note: This is a two part series from our friend of many words, Diane Rufino. Here is our first part of the two part series on ObamaCare and later Nullification as a remedy to this miscarriage of legislation by a completely thoughtless bunch - many of whom are no longer governing.

    The official name of the sweeping healthcare reform bill is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148). It passed the House of Congress narrowly, by a vote of 220 - 215. It was signed into law on March 23, 2010 by President Obama. We unaffectionately call it "Obamacare" because of the ruthless energy the president used to get it passed, including not giving members of Congress the opportunity to read it. He called Democrats into closed quarters and despite not having enough votes beforehand, magically he was able to convince them to switch their loyalty from the People to the Government. Not a single Republican voted for the bill, and 39 Democrats refused to vote for it as well. Imagine the breach of confidence those Democrats committed when they voted for the bill without even knowing what they were imposing on the American people.

    When we learned about the healthcare plan, we understood that it was going to make healthcare available to 32 million Americans who currently are uninsured. We were told that for those of us who already had insurance, either through our employer or a private plan, or through Medicaid or Medicare, we would be able to keep it. For those who don't have insurance or have been denied insurance because of a pre-existing condition, however, they would be able to obtain coverage either through a state-based insurance exchange system (including an expanded Medicaid program) or under newly-expanded Medicare guidelines. Those with pre-existing conditions would not be penalized for those conditions and would be able to purchase insurance at the same rate as those healthier individuals. What we didn't know was that by 2014, every citizen would be forced to purchase insurance or be penalized. What we didn't know was that up to 16,000 new IRS agents would be hired under the bill to go after those who didn't purchase insurance and to have direct access to their bank accounts. What we didn't know was that healthy young men and women would be forced to purchase insurance for the sole purpose of paying for other's coverage. What we didn't know that the bill was full of new taxes and penalties.

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi hailed the bill as "the greatest initiative for the economy."

    Obamacare was sold to the American people by the President and Speaker Pelosi as a fundamental right. On the House floor, she announced: "Did you know the president's controversial health care law helps guarantee "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? I appreciate his leadership in helping us honor what our founders put forth in our founding documents, which is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And that is exactly what the Affordable Care Act helps to guarantee - a healthier life, the liberty to pursue happiness, to be free of the constraints that lack of healthcare might provide to a family.... If you want to be photographer, a writer, an artist, a musician, you can do so. If you what to start a business, if you want to change jobs, under the Affordable Care Act, you have that liberty to pursue your happiness."
Nancy Pelosi speaking to the delegation of county commissioners at the NACo Legislative Conference in Washington, DC, where she spoke about the landmark legislation ObamCare, where she remarked, "We have to pass it so we can read what's in it:" Above. And the former Speaker, again, straining to explain her pointless point: Below.     photos by Stan Deatherage
    I've never heard someone interpret any of our founding documents so broadly.

    Rep. Candice Miller (R-Mich) admonished the Democrats for being so intent on passing a "jobs-killing, tax-hiking, deficit-exploding bill." He said: "We are going to have a complete government takeover of our health care system faster than you can say, 'This is making me sick'." Obviously he knew more than most of the other Congressmen knew.

    When making promises and assurances to the Congress and to the American people in his attempt to gain support for the healthcare scheme, President Obama emphasized over and over again: "I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes." Well, funny how that promise; that guarantee, that disclaimer of "no new tax increase" in combination with the term "penalty" that appeared no less than 18 times in the text of the healthcare bill managed to convince Chief Justice John Roberts that the Individual Mandate was in fact a "tax."

    So, in spite of what President Obama promised, we has gifted us the largest middle-class tax hike in history.

    Which brings us to the healthcare decision....

    The Healthcare Decision --

    The bottom line is that we are stuck with Obamacare. The Supreme Court handed down that sentence on June 28 of this year in a decision I like to call "Supreme Nonsense." As we all may recall, 26 states joined together in a lawsuit right after the healthcare bill was enacted (titled Florida v. Sibelius) and challenged the Individual Mandate under the Commerce Clause (the very basis the Congress gave for its authority to legislate) and the Medicaid expansion provision under the Tenth Amendment (claiming that it coerced, or forced, the states into doing something on behalf of the government). Without the Individual Mandate, the states argued that the bill must fail in its entirety for it is that provision that requires the coverage and which is the primary source of funding. Without the mandate, the stated goals of the bill are defeated.

    First, the Chief Justice voted with his four conservative colleagues in concluding that the Individual Mandate violated the Commerce Clause. They defined the scope of the Commerce Clause and established a "bright line" rule to guide future federal intrusion into the personal lives of Americans. On a positive note, this decision will restrict American Presidents and future Congresses for a generation and more. Furthermore, the Chief Justice agreed with the states that the Medicaid expansion program violated the Tenth Amendment (states' rights) and impermissibly coerced them and their resources. But the decision didn't end there, unfortunately.

    As if out of nowhere, Roberts lobbed a curveball to ordinary Americans (who thought they understood the plain meaning of the Constitution) and to legal scholars as well. He sided with the four liberal members of the Court and classified the Individual Mandate as something the administration took great pains to not classify it as - a "tax." He embraced a position denied by the White House. Roberts wrote that the mandate provision "need not be read to do more than impose a tax. That is sufficient to sustain it." He upheld the Individual Mandate, as he explained, under Congress' expansive tax and spend powers. As he wrote: "The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause," Roberts wrote. "That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it. In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax."

    Chief Justice Roberts went out of his way to salvage the Individual Mandate which most scholars believed was unconstitutional. As Merrill Matthews wrote in Forbes magazine: "In essence, Roberts reached down and pulled out a drowning man who had gone under for the third time."

    By narrowing Congress' commerce and spending powers, Roberts moved the law in a decidedly conservative direction. Yet by invoking the taxing power, he saved not only the people but also Congress from the consequences of their political choices. Let's hope that the decision will help the President suffer from the consequences of his blind ambition by losing in November. I hope the American people will have the courage to do what the Chief Justice refused to do -- stand up to a President and democratic congressmen who never once gave even the slightest consideration to the fact that the individual mandate was likely unconstitutional. Not one. As Nancy Pelosi responded when asked about the provision's constitutionality: "Are you serious? Are you serious?" Another democratic congressman, Rep. Phil Hare (D-Ill) said to an inquiring reporter: "I don't know. I don't worry about the Constitution on this, to be honest.... It doesn't matter to me."

    Again, the bottom line is that Obamacare survived judicial scrutiny, whether legitimately or under a flawed application of constitutional interpretation. The Individual Mandate, as both a premium and a penalty, is a tax. Obamacare is paid for by a tax, and in fact, many additional new taxes. But the tax is not uniform. The Obamacare tax does not apply to those who presently are untaxed, and it will not apply to the more wealthy, who will be excused because they carry health insurance anyway. So the tax will fall to the middle-class and in fact, the healthcare bill imposes the biggest tax on the middle-class in the entire history of the United States. (And that doesn't even factor in all the other taxes included in Obamacare).

    [Consider that the median US family income is about $50,000. Family health coverage can easily run $20,000 a year, to increase sharply year after year. In this scenario, the coverage mandate is essentially a 40% tax on that family, which is now required by law to ensure that every family member has qualifying coverage. ($20,000 is 40% of $50,000). Because the cost of the coverage will be similar even though incomes vary significantly, the lower the income the higher the effective tax rate, thereby making the tax the most regressive tax in US history, as well].

    The most offensive parts of the healthcare bill, as addressed above, are the Individual Mandate, the Medicaid expansion provision, and the series of taxes that will be levied one on top of another, and to be applied stepwise in the next ten years, as a means to pay for the plan. There are at least 21 new taxes embedded in the bill. Obama pulled the old "bait and switch," which is defined as "an illegal tactic in which a seller advertises one product with the intention of persuading customers to purchase a more expensive product." He sold us on a product that would cost us one price and impose little burden on the middle-class when in fact, the product comes at a much higher price and at a much greater consequence (to liberty).

    As Judge Andrew Napolitano explained the decision: "When we pay our taxes in April, we're paying taxes on income that we earned. We went out and earned it. When you put gas in the car, you're paying a tax on the gasoline that you bought. If you use tobacco products, you're paying federal taxes on tobacco products that you purchased. In each of those cases you are affirmatively engaging in behavior that you know is taxable. But this is the first time in the history of the country that the Court has permitted the Congress to tax people for doing nothing. To punish them for refusing to do what the government wants them to do. That is a very, very dangerous precedent."

    Simply put, the government is going to take a lot more money from the people who earn it -- mostly from wealthier Americans who as I explained above, will most likely not even feel it (although $250,000 doesn't really get you much these days, especially if you live in parts of the northeast, Florida, California, and Arizona) and from most small businesses who will most certainly feel it. It will result in those businesses hiring fewer people, laying off more employees, cutting hours, closing facilities, and thus increasing already high unemployment.

    The healthcare decision was most unfortunate and has put the new demons over the American people.

    The "Job-Killing" Bill -

    Many people have a basic idea of what Obamacare does. Because the bill was so unwieldy and complicated, many are only now discovering many of its details and implications. You can hide a lot of needles inside a haystack that contains 2,700 pages. Three of those needles included the Individual Mandate (an act of coercion by the federal government), the Independent Advisory Payment Board (IPAB, also known as the "death panels"), and the Medicaid expansion program which will put an enormous burden on the states. I'll discuss them in more detail.

    We now know that Obamacare will be the largest tax increase on the middle class in US history. It is already chilling job creation because employers are afraid of what will come down the pipes with Obamacare, and it will KILL any new jobs because of the massive increase in taxes on those who earn over $250,000. As you know, most small business owners organize as an LLC or an association, which means they file as an "individual" under the tax code. And most small business owners are able to classify as earning over $250,000. So they will be hit the hardest by Obamacare, as well as by Obama's plans to increase taxes on that group if he is re-elected. They will not be able to absorb all the new taxes and still be able to invest in expanding their business, especially when it means they will have to pay healthcare benefits for all new employees (in addition to those they already employ).

    -- On Wednesday, October 10th, we heard on the news that a Florida billionaire, David Siegel (owner of Westgate Resorts) sent a letter to his 7,000 employees, informing them that he could be forced to lay some of them off if President Obama wins a second term. He said that the Obama administration was a threat to their jobs. He warned that "if any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company. I can longer support a system that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, so will your opportunities."

    -- That same day, Darden Restaurants announced that it will cut worker hours to part-time in order to meet the rising healthcare costs imposed by Obamacare. Darden Restaurants includes chains such as McDonalds, White Castle, Ruby Tuesdays, Jack-in-the-Box, and many others. Darden has been providing healthcare benefits to its part-time employees which it thought was more than fair, but now under the healthcare bill, which is inflexible on this matter, employees who work 30 hours or more must be provided the same all-inclusive plan that full-time employees receive. Furthermore, companies that do not comply will be penalized. So Darden is going to respond by cutting all non full-time employees down to under 30 hours. [Note that these restaurants, along with Unions, were granted waivers from Obamacare, but they were only temporary. They were 1-year waivers in order to give these organizations time to figure out how to adapt. And now we know... They are going to cut worker hours].

    Parts of Obamacare have already affected you or someone you know, and the economy has already been affected. We hear so much about the depressed jobs numbers. How many jobs could be created today if businesses, especially small businesses, didn't have to worry about how Obamacare will negatively impact them? We can only imagine how many jobs are instantly able to be created if we only had an administration that wasn't intent on punishing business in order to establish a socialist scheme. We already have the highest business tax in the entire world.

    If Mitt Romney is elected, he has promised to repeal Obamacare on his first day in office. I predict that we will immediately see an increase in job creation and an improvement in our economy. As Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney understand, the economy depends on production and that means jobs. The biggest driver of revenue to the federal government isn't higher tax rates.... it's economic growth. Growth is the key to fiscal sustainability. And low tax rates are the key to growth. We can never hope to lower taxes if Obamacare is implemented.

    If Obama is re-elected, we can hope to repeal it, but he will never sign it. That will require a supermajority. And we will only have a supermajority if a whole lot more Republicans are elected into both houses of Congress, especially the Senate. We can also look into defunding it.

    Repeal and Dismantlement --

    Obamacare was intended and designed to withstand attempts by Republicans to make it go away. We saw how easily the Supreme Court was able to convert the Individual Mandate "penalty" into a "tax." We are seeing how the plan goes into effect piece by piece, to be fully implemented by 2014 but still requiring further appropriations into 2019. The massive 2,700-page health care law is deliberately designed to make defunding and dismantling difficult. Dismantling will be difficult because Obamacare has created so many new governmental agencies. Although original estimates reported that it created 159 new government agencies, the Congressional Research Service later concluded that the actual number of new agencies, boards, etc., "is currently unknowable," because so many of them are empowered to spawn additional entities, just as weeds grow by sending out runners and seeds. Defunding will be particularly tricky because the law is designed to be difficult to uproot, just like a plant with an elaborate root system.

    How does the healthcare bill frustrate efforts by Congress to defund the bill?

    -- First, approximately $120 billion in funding appropriations were included in the bill which Obama signed. Appropriations were made immediately. This violates the typical Congressional process of appropriations. The normal process typically involves enacting authorization bills that authorize spending, and then follows those with separate legislation that actually appropriates the money.

    -- Second, by making advance appropriations for tens of billions of dollars up to the year 2019, these provisions of Obamacare seek to remove spending decisions from the reach of the current Congress and from future Congresses and Presidents. Although Obamacare was not pitched to the public as a mandatory spending entitlement, the details of the legislation reveal an intent to block any future Congress from controlling spending on Obamacare.

    -- To defund Obamacare, it is insufficient simply to deny future funding. Until the full law can be repealed, at least the existing and advance appropriations need to be rescinded, just as the House voted last year to repeal billions of dollars from previous appropriations to 123 federal programs. Unfortunately this vote was void because of a parliamentary procedure violation. That was most unfortunate.

    -- With the healthcare bill, the Congressional Democrats sought to bind future Congresses to spending obligations with Obamacare - for a full decade in advance. This is an outrageous effort. It may not be unconstitutional per se, but in a system that gives citizens the right to have input in the affairs of Congress thru the ballot box, spending decisions should be made by those who currently hold office, not by those who have resigned or been turned out by the voters.