The U.S. House did what its candidates had promised and the voters expected: The House passed 245 to 189 a repeal of ObamaCare, the centerpiece of socialism. Three Democrats joined every single Republican, with Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., and Steve King, R-Iowa, spearheading the charge.
According to public opinion polls, support for repeal remains strong among the American people despite President Obama's prediction that once his favorite bill was enacted into law we would like it. In addition, 200 distinguished economics experts, mostly professors of economics, signed a letter predicting that an implementation of ObamaCare will be a barrier to job growth and inflict us with a crushing debt burden, and is not real health care reform.
The House should keep up its momentum by specifically repealing the most obnoxious section, which 26 states are now trying to get the courts to rule unconstitutional: the mandate on individuals to buy insurance. How can President Obama veto that repeal? When he campaigned against Hillary Clinton, he accused her of supporting such a mandate and promised to oppose it.
The representatives who voted for repeal should keep reminding the public why it is a bad, dictatorial and offensively expensive law. They should taunt the Senate into having a vote so we will know who is on which side of this issue.
When repeal is finally achieved, either through a change of U.S. president in 2012 or a Supreme Court ruling that ObamaCare's crucial provision is unconstitutional, Americans will enjoy some rights that ObamaCare will otherwise take away.
For example, you won't be hit with a big fine by the government for not buying the insurance the government orders you to buy. You will retain your right to buy health insurance that includes the benefits you need instead of a more costly policy mandated by the bureaucrats.
When the repeal of ObamaCare is final, you won't lose your job because your employer struggles to comply with this expensive mandate. Your children and grandchildren won't be hit with $1 trillion of new debt to burden their future.If you are young, you won't be forced to pay higher premiums for mandatory health insurance to subsidize people who are older and sicker. If you are a senior, you won't suffer a half a trillion dollars taken out of Medicare to pay for new health entitlements.
You won't be standing in long lines as you try to see a doctor. You won't be put on a two-year waiting list for surgery you need.
The Center for Health Transformation just issued 1,968 reasons to repeal ObamaCare. A chart reveals the ways in which the 2,700-page law grants 1,968 powers to the secretary of health and human services, along with control over 18 percent of our entire economy.
For example, the regulators will decide what clinical drugs seniors will be allowed to get. The regulators will instruct doctors whether or not to give a drug to patients in long-term care.
The regulators are empowered to use "comparative effectiveness research" to determine whether seniors get care. That's code for the authority of bureaucrats to decide whether (based on your age and condition) you are worth spending any money on -- aka death panels that will decide whether you live or die.
House members should remember that some promised repeal AND replace. Their task is to detach health care from bureaucrats and appropriators because that's the only way to get health care costs under control.
We should also detach health care from the unfortunate link between jobs and health insurance that created the present system of third-party payers. That process began as a tax loophole during World War II wage and price control, and it now traps millions of Americans in a tough compromise between an unproductive job and unsuitable high-cost health insurance.
The House should hold weekly hearings in order to dispel the misinformation we are fed by the liberals, such as the foolish notion that government health care in other countries is more efficient and less costly. Tens of thousands of foreigners come to the U.S. every year for medical treatment because they know they have a better survival rate here.
Compare these statistics between the U.S. and United Kingdom released by the United Nations International Health Organization. The percentage of people who survived cancer five years after diagnosis: U.S. 65 percent, U.K. 46 percent; diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months: U.S. 93 percent, U.K. 15 percent; seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months: U.S. 90 percent, U.K. 15 percent; getting to see a medical specialist within one month: U.S. 77 percent, U.K. 40 percent.