Another interview has surfaced in which Jonathan Gruber, the MIT economist whose bragged about being involved in writing ObamaCare, suggested that subsidies will not be available to consumers in states that don't set up health insurance exchanges under the so-called "Affordable Care Act."

Since the passage of ObamaCare in 2010, critics of the law have endured the criticism that we’re all about opposition, without providing constructive alternatives for health care reform. The truth is closer to the polar opposite – if anything, we suffer from a surplus, rather than a deficit, of comprehensive plans to repeal and replace ObamaCare.

Americans already spend some 6 billion hours and $168 billion each year complying with a complex and onerous tax code. But ObamaCare is going to make tax filing even more of a chore for consumers who received subsidies for health plans purchased through the state and federal exchanges.

Cornell University has announced a $350 fee for students who don't enroll in the Ivy League school's Student Health Insurance Plan (SHIP), and students are pushing back against the administration, going as far as storming into the office of the school's president, David Skorton.

As the second ObamaCare open enrollment period came to a close over the weekend, more Americans learned that they owe Uncle Sam money because they received subsidies that were too great, in many cases because they had underestimated their income levels for 2014 when they applied for coverage through the health insurance exchanges.

The White House isn't up to speed on the number of American households that will be forced to pay a punitive tax because they didn't have health insurance coverage last year.

With solid control of both the House and the Senate, one of the clearest mandates delivered to the Republicans in Congress was to repeal the onerous takeover of health care known as ObamaCare. This year, the new Congress has the greatest opportunity yet to fulfill that mandate – by using the budget process known as reconciliation. As millions of Americans are forced to pay a fine for not buying health insurance, and with millions more still struggling with high premiums and deductibles, there is no reason why Republicans should not use a tactic that can place a full repeal of the so-called “Affordable Care Act” upon the president’s desk.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments for the King v. Burwell case starting March 4th, with a decision likely to come down sometime in June. The Court’s decision will determine whether the IRS’ illegal implementation of ObamaCare subsidies to states that refused to set up insurance exchanges can continue. If not, the true cost of ObamaCare will be revealed to the American public, a cost that has until now been partially concealed by the IRS’ decision to circumvent the written law.

While the federal government often entices states to promote its agenda by promising “free” federal money for the states that adopt their programs, this money is never free, and always comes with strings attached. When the federal government offers “free” money for a program it is really just hoping to get the states hooked on the program before the giveaways disappear, much like a drug dealer who offers you the first hit for free.

The command and control mandates of ObamaCare continue to cause unintended consequences for businesses.