CITING “INFLEXIBLE MANDATES“
by Sharon Rondeau
(Jul. 9, 2012) — The U.S. House of Representatives was scheduled to begin debate at 5:00 p.m. EDT today on whether or not to repeal the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (PPACA), a portion of which a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court said could be interpreted as a constitutional tax on June 28, 2012.
While Chief Justice John Roberts, in his majority opinion, stated that the “penalty” described in the PPACA could be levied as a tax against those choosing not to buy insurance, the 7-2 decision striking down the mandate that states must expand their Medicaid rolls allows states to decline to participate. A least 15 states have said that they will not participate in the program, the most recent being Texas, whose new voter identification law is being argued in federal court beginning today.
There appears to be evidence that Roberts wrote parts of both the dissenting and majority opinions, and the Obama regime has never promoted the bill as a tax. The government’s claim that the individual mandate could be made under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution was rejected by a majority of the court.
The House voted in January 2011 to repeal the bill, with all Republicans and three Democrats voting in favor. Speaker of the House John Boehner has called the law “harmful.” At that time, some health insurance professionals stated that elements of the law were already “hurting our fragile economy and costing jobs.” A Senate vote came very close in favor of repealing at 47-51.
A writer at The Washington Post stated that the House is debating repeal again to create “uncertainty” before the 2012 presidential and congressional elections. “Psychologists have found that people tend to react to new restrictions on their liberties in two ways. They can resist the law and fight back with everything they have. Or, they can rationalize it and think up ways that it isn’t actually so bad. The key variable, in determining whether people will resist or rationalize, turns out to be uncertainty,” wrote Sarah Cliff.
The House proposal to repeal the PPACA is here and is referred to as the “Repeal of Obamacare Act.” It states that the PPACA will reduce Medicare funds by about $500B and increase taxes by $800B over the next decade to pay for itself (page 2). It claims that the bill “expands government control over health care” and increases costs (page 5).
A simple majority in the Senate could pass a repeal measure through the reconciliation process. One columnist has called repeal “impossible.” Another prediction is that a full repeal is unlikely until early next year after the elections.
Sharon Rondeau has operated The Post & Email since April 2010, focusing on the Obama birth certificate investigation and other government corruption news. She has reported prolifically on constitutional violations within Tennessee’s prison and judicial systems.