Contact FreedomWorks

400 North Capitol Street, NW
Suite 765
Washington, DC 20001

  • Toll Free 1.888.564.6273
  • Local 202.783.3870

Blog

    Delay the Individual Mandate and Strike Another Blow to ObamaCare

    Did you catch SNL this past weekend?  Even they can't ignore the fact that ObamaCare isn't working. 

    Last week, I wrote about how the vultures are circling as the ObamaCare rollout has been a disaster. Today, there is real blood in the water and the sharks are ready to pounce.

    During the shutdown debate, there was "concern" among some Republicans over a failure to see an "end game" to the effort to defund ObamaCare. Conservatives were told they needed to recognize they were playing with "live ammo." Conservatives should not "deceive" the American people into thinking Congress can defund ObamaCare without knowing where Republicans are going to find six Democrats to join their effort. Given the disasterous Obamacare rollout, Democrats are running for cover, especially those who represent conservative states and are up for re-election next year.

    Democrat operatives are speaking about how the party is, well, let's use the polite word: screwed as Americans get sticker shock over the increased cost of coverage. A law that was sold as lowering the cost of coverage and decreasing the ranks of the uninsured has so far caused 1.5 million to lose coverage including 500,000 in California and 300,000 in Florida.  This while enrollmaven.com estimates that fewer than 40,000 people have obtained coverage through state health insurance exchanges. 

    Sensing panic in its ranks, there are reports President Obama is considering extending the open enrollment period through the end of March. Congressional Republicans need to unite and insist that Congress pass a one year waiver to the individual mandate rather than an extension of the open enrollment period and codify it into law.

    Why is this so important and why might President Obama try and preempt Congress from doing so?

    President Obama knows that once Congress sets a precedent and delays the individual mandate, it will not hesitate from doing so in the future. Also, once Congress delays the individual mandate for one year, that too will be "the law of the land" and subject to debate from one year to the next. 

    Fully repealing ObamaCare, or defunding it would have been the preferred option, but if we have consensus on both sides of the aisle to delay at least one more portion, the individual mandate, we should push for delay. Congress need only set the precedent by waiving the individual mandate to inflict serious damage to Obamacare.

    For President Obama, it has never been never about increasing access to actual health care or reducing the cost of care. It has always been about control. Listen to Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, President Obama's principal health reform adviser, speak about ObamaCare on Fox News. Dr. Emanuel is not interested in suggestions by Democrats like West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin that people should not be required to purchase health insurance coverage that is inferior or more expensive than coverage they currently have. Dr. Emanuel and President Obama know what is best for people.

    This is why Republicans need to unite and use this political momentum to give Americans one year of reprieve. Republicans should use any and every legislative opportunity to accomplish this goal. Now is the time to unite the party, shepherd as many vulnerable Senate Democrats as possible onto our side, join hands and do something that has been long overdo, drive a dagger straight into the heart of Obamacare!

    9 comments
    stonestone's picture
    stone stone
    10/28/2013

    So your article was premised by a bit on SNL? Nice start. But the remainder of the post is the same worn-out diatribe about how Obamacare will not work, along with various unrelated errata trying to somehow make Obamacare into this spectacular flop before its even had a real chance to roll out. So I assume that since this astroturf experiment failed to shut down Obamacare... then obviously its on to plan B: Just badmouth it at all costs.
    I guess perhaps I might see this as a good thing: The GOP and the small faction of astroturf-elected politicians whom controls them will keep right on going on and on about Obamacare and the rest of the country will simply keep moving on as the Tea Party and what it is trying to do will increasingly fade into oblivion. The GOP is probably going to lose the house during the upcoming election, and more than likely the 2016 election as well due to the lack of clear direction and inability to stop letting far-right politicians call their party's shots. So for Democrats I suppose this might as well be the gift that keep right on givin'.

    stonestone's picture
    stone stone
    10/28/2013

    So you are seriously suggesting as a counterpoint that if one were unhappy with their auto insurance they would move to another state? Come on! But interesting that you mentioned people moving from blue to red states. Interesting because I am a former red-stater myself. I grew up in the middle of nowhere. But the people you mention who are moving to red states aren't doing it primarily because of taxes or insurance, but because real estate is cheaper. That is the main reason. Additionally, the cities that are attracting the most relocatees are typically more liberal, aka- Austin, Raleigh, and so on. This is why in case of NC, this larger influx of people who are more likely to vote Democratic has changed the general characteristics of its voting record. I would also look up exactly how much money generated by various highly economically successful states like California is then sent to red states. And if we're going to rathole down into " Show me where in the constitution...." type of rhetoric, then I too could ask the very same question of "where in the constitution" does it say I have to ( Enter one of the many 100's of thousands of laws on the books). The answer is that it is a law and it was created by the US political system: elected officials in the house, senate, and then the President who signs what those two previous bodies pass. That is how our political system works and laws are made.

    EyeOnFreedom's picture
    EyeOnFreedom
    10/28/2013

    Auto insurance is notoriously expensive in NJ. If I am unhappy with my auto insurance rate if I live in NJ, I can move to NY or TX or CA or some other state. If my state taxes me to much or the business regulations are too onerous, I can pack up and move to another state. People do it all the time. That is why red states have population inflows as people are migrating from blue states. If federal taxes are too high or federal regulations are too onerous, I have no possibility of relief. Also, I am not required to buy auto insurance because I am not required to own a car. Similarly, I am not required to own a home and buy home owner's insurance. Show me where in the United States Constitution it says President Obama is empowered to require me to buy insurance to cover gynecological services?

    stonestone's picture
    stone stone
    10/28/2013

    I'm also sure that the car insurance you are required to buy in almost every single state will also have elements of its policy that you shall also never need, yet you pay for. Likewise the home insurance you might also have is similar. And yet somehow I fail to see copious amounts of people complaining about that. This is how insurance works. And the President alone didn't make these determinations: Congress, the Senate, and the Supreme court did that as well. As far as comparable, that was in referral to the overall price. So the bottom line is that those dropped from plans that didn't meet minimum requirements will actually be getting better plans at the same price in most cases.

    EyeOnFreedom's picture
    EyeOnFreedom
    10/28/2013

    (1) Aren't I entitled to determine whether my new Obamacare policy will be "better"? What entitles President Obama to make that determination for me? My new Obamacare policy requires me to buy maternity coverage, a "benefit" I am quite certain I will NEVER need.

    (2) If by comparable you mean more expensive, then yes my new plan will be "comparable."

    stonestone's picture
    stone stone
    10/28/2013

    old the hosses for just one second there... This along with a number of other pieces on this marvelous site are basically clamoring to repeat what this so-called study that originated from the National Center for Public Policy Research, of which you also mentioned the " 1.5 million will lose their coverage". That is only telling half of the story. The other half, which is pretty crucial, is that the reason some people have been given notice of their current plan's termination is because the plans they are on won't meet the minimum requirements ACA requires. As such, they will then be able to re-enroll in a plan that is actually better, and at a comparable cost. I know what articles like these were trying to do: MILLIONS LOSE THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE!!!!! Yeah... that sounds reaaallll scary, that is until the reality of the situation is actually clarified.

    EyeOnFreedom's picture
    EyeOnFreedom
    10/28/2013

    When NBC turns on Obama, he is in deep trouble!

    Obama knew millions could not keep their health insurance and lied about it!

    http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-admin-...

    Jonathan Gillispie
    10/28/2013

    A good point! Exempt everyone or exempt no one is my motto.

    Edwin Loftus
    10/28/2013

    - The Republican "moderates" undermined the House majority's ability to force a delay as a resolution of the budget deadlock. They asserted then that the best argument against Obamacare would come in letting the people see its effects. though a minority (in the House, they were a majority in the Senate) by joining the Democrats they prevailed.
    - It would now be contrary to their "well thought out strategy" to delay enactment of the individual mandate now ... thereby contradicting their assertions of a few weeks ago.
    - They cast their lot, now let them stand by it. If the American people suffer under Obamacare much more than they are pleased with it, it will be in their interest to punish those that caused this suffering ... mostly Democrats, but perhaps some "moderate Republicans" as well.
    - If the people are mostly happy with their experience the Democrats will win anyway.
    - If they are mostly unhappy with it, hopefully the Conservatives will be ready to remind them who was really watching out for their interests.

    Pages