MUST READ: Nullifying Obamacare, Empowering States

In just over a week, Republicans will take control of the House of Representatives. Americans swept them into power in November on the promise they would stop the advance of big government and roll it back. Nothing exemplifies President Obama’s big-government agenda more than Obamacare. House Republicans are expected to act swiftly to stymie the law’s implementation and repeal it.

In the Weekly Standard, Fred Barnes outlines another approach to nullifying Obamacare – interstate compacts.  Barnes

The newest and most ambitious would create a health care compact among the states and use it to switch control of health care programs from the federal government to the states.

If that sounds like a long shot, it’s no more so than the other schemes for nullifying Obamacare. These include repeal by Congress or by constitutional amendment, lawsuits to strike down Obamacare’s individual mandate, and actions by governors and House Republicans to slow down its implementation.

Those are worthy efforts. But a health care compact would do more. If successful—a very big “if”—it would reduce the scope of Washington’s power. States, not Congress, the White House, or federal bureaucrats, would set the rules for health care from top to bottom, from Medicare and Medicaid to individual insurance policies.

Barnes also explains how such an effort could gain bipartisan support in Congress:

However, there’s a bigger reason for forming a compact against Obamacare. By banding together, states would have far more political clout in Washington. Backers of the health care compact figure they need more than 20 states to pressure Washington to go along. Their assumption is members of Congress (even Democrats who support Obamacare) would be inclined to vote for a formal request from their home state. Members who oppose Obama-care would vote for it as well.

Please Share Your Thoughts

2 thoughts on “MUST READ: Nullifying Obamacare, Empowering States

  1. Here’s an excerpt from the land of: Why do Baby –boomers fear the loss of benefits?, or, “How will they cope if they outlive Medicare’s existence?”

    That’s all you can say? “Me, me, me”- What a joke! No critical analysis of my opinion?

    I guess you figure it should be a government who must redistribute wealth. I thought it was a fundamental religious(spiritual) tenet that you give alms…up to the amount of faith you possess…and true faith in action is sometimes mercy.

    But politicians(Democrats, specifically) want to demean, and legislate the process. They can’t wait for you to do alms where “one hand doesn’t see what the other is up to”(that implies a transaction folks).

    By taxing you, or forcing healthcare on “sheep-ple”, a transaction occurs(quid-pro-quo).
    But shouldn’t something-for-something be a voluntary sport, less it become Ad dictum?

    I’ve spoken to die-hard liberals about this in prior years, and they claim voluntary donations are not a robust budget process, or it’s just not fair. I counter with why do you spend before you have $$, and what is this hang-up about fair-ness? Just how is it measured? Is it zero-sum? Just who-the-hell gets screwed here, and why? For a vote?

    Or to perpetuate the party of a pajama-wearing circus, of constituents bemused by who their fathers are, who frequently jest,” did we just have a heterosexual moment?”, and who can never make a equitable argument that culminates in legislative consensus, but would rather force a decision upon all by cowardly judicial decree.

    Even Jesus said that, “You’ll always have the poor…” meaning it is righteous to do alms for the lesser of us, but do not forget to focus on who is Lord first. And of the young rich man who seeks heaven, but Jesus tells “to go sell all you have…take-up your cross and follow me.” Was this not a personal decision that Christ left up to the wealthy man?

    So then, how has this greed for politically-forced alms ever usurped spiritually-focused alms? I mean, who but a naked Democrat would measure same? Thus, I claim the liberal’s tenet of “Tolerance” is not universally applied, and it is a hypocritical balm at that!

    Basically, they don’t have tolerance for my right to live as freely as possible. Even when I pay my own way. What gives here? Nothing, but a reason to whizz on Ted Kennedy’s grave, and support the strike-down of YO-Drama’s socialist power-grab!!!

  2. Here’s an excerpt from the land of: Why do Baby –boomers fear the loss of benefits?, or, “How will they cope if they outlive Medicare’s existence?”

    That’s all you can say? “Me, me, me”- What a joke! No critical analysis of my opinion?

    I guess you figure it should be a government who must redistribute wealth. I thought it was a fundamental religious(spiritual) tenet that you give alms…up to the amount of faith you possess…and true faith in action is sometimes mercy.

    But politicians(Democrats, specifically) want to demean, and legislate the process. They can’t wait for you to do alms where “one hand doesn’t see what the other is up to”(that implies a transaction folks).

    By taxing you, or forcing healthcare on “sheep-ple”, a transaction occurs(quid-pro-quo).
    But shouldn’t something-for-something be a voluntary sport, less it become Ad dictum?

    I’ve spoken to die-hard liberals about this in prior years, and they claim voluntary donations are not a robust budget process, or it’s just not fair. I counter with why do you spend before you have $$, and what is this hang-up about fair-ness? Just how is it measured? Is it zero-sum? Just who-the-hell gets screwed here, and why? For a vote?

    Or to perpetuate the party of a pajama-wearing circus, of constituents bemused by who their fathers are, who frequently jest,” did we just have a heterosexual moment?”, and who can never make a equitable argument that culminates in legislative consensus, but would rather force a decision upon all by cowardly judicial decree.

    Even Jesus said that, “You’ll always have the poor…” meaning it is righteous to do alms for the lesser of us, but do not forget to focus on who is Lord first. And of the young rich man who seeks heaven, but Jesus tells “to go sell all you have…take-up your cross and follow me.” Was this not a personal decision that Christ left up to the wealthy man?

    So then, how has this greed for politically-forced alms ever usurped spiritually-focused alms? I mean, who but a naked Democrat would measure same? Thus, I claim the liberal’s tenet of “Tolerance” is not universally applied, and it is a hypocritical balm at that!

    Basically, they don’t have tolerance for my right to live as freely as possible. Even when I pay my own way. What gives here? Nothing, but a reason to whizz on Ted Kennedy’s grave, and support the strike-down of YO-Drama’s socialist power-grab!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *