72% Believe Obamacare Will Make Things Worse Or Won’t Help
72% Say It’s Unconstitutional
GALLUP: “Americans overwhelmingly believe the ‘individual mandate,’ as it is often called, is unconstitutional, by a margin of 72% to 20%.” (USA Today / Gallup Poll, 2/20-21/12)
“Even a majority of Democrats… believe that provision is unconstitutional.” (USA Today / Gallup Poll, 2/20-21/12)
· “As you may know, the Supreme Court will hear arguments next month concerning a requirement in the healthcare law that every American must buy health insurance or pay a fine. Regardless of whether you favor or oppose the law, do you think this requirement is constitutional or unconstitutional? All Americans: Constitutional: 20%; Unconstitutional: 72%; Unsure: 7%.” (USA Today / Gallup Poll, 2/20-21/12)
· “…do you think this requirement is constitutional or unconstitutional? Independents: 70% unconstitutional.” (USA Today / Gallup Poll, 2/20-21/12)
· “…do you think this requirement is constitutional or unconstitutional? Democrats: 56% unconstitutional.” (USA Today / Gallup Poll, 2/20-21/12)
72% Think Obamacare Will Make Things Worse Or Won’t Help
“Americans are less optimistic that the law will improve their family’s healthcare situation in the long run, however. Thirty-eight percent expect the law to make their situation worse, compared with 24% who say better.” (USA Today / Gallup Poll, 2/20-21/12)
· “Now suppose all of the provisions of the healthcare law go into effect in the next few years. In the long run, how do you think the healthcare law would affect your family’s healthcare situation? All Americans: Make better: 24%; Not much difference: 34%; Make worse: 38%.” (USA Today / Gallup Poll, 2/20-21/12)
Obama was right on the individual mandate…before he was wrong.
(Las Vegas, NV) – Today marks two years since President Obama signed the massive health care legislation into law. At the time, seven-term Congresswoman Shelley Berkley claimed people would like the bill once they knew more about it.
“In her haste to join Nancy Pelosi and push the health care bill through Congress, Shelley Berkley claimed the more people know about ObamaCare, the ‘more they will like it.’ Well, now we know and no one wants it,” said Chandler Smith, Heller for Senate spokeswoman. “As Nevadans struggle for ways to pay for healthcare, they won’t forget that Shelley Berkley stood with Washington Democrats rather than Nevadans who are looking for jobs and affordable health care,” said Chandler Smith, Heller for Senate spokeswoman.
After the March 2010 vote, Shelley Berkley said of President Obama’s healthcare law: “the more people know what is in there and understand it, they more they will like it.” (Steve Tetrault, “Titus skips bill signing, meets visitors,” Las Vegas Review-Journal, March 24, 2010)
Two years later, we aren’t convinced:
- A majority of Americans oppose ObamaCare: An ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that Americans oppose the law overall by 52-41 percent. And 67 percent believe the high court should either get rid of the law or at least the portion that requires nearly all Americans to have coverage.” (Greg Holyk, “As Health Care Law’s Trial Approaches, Two-Thirds Say Ditch Individual Mandate,” ABC News, 3/19/12)
- Nevada secured a partial waiver from the law: The Obama Administration has given over 1200 waivers from the health care law—including to the State of Nevada. (Sam Baker, “HHS Finalizes 1,200 Waivers Under Healthcare Reform Law,” The Hill, 1/6/2012); (Karoun Demirjian, “Nevada secures partial waiver from federal health care law,” Las Vegas Sun, May 16, 2011)
- Two-thirds of Americans say the Supreme Court should rule the mandate unconstitutional. (Greg Holyk, “As Health Care Law’s Trial Approaches, Two-Thirds Say Ditch Individual Mandate,” ABC News, 3/19/2012)
- An AP poll finds ObamaCare “still unpopular:” The poll found that 35 percent of Americans support the health care law overhaul, while 47 percent oppose it. That’s similar to the same split as when it passed. Then, 39 percent supported it and 50 percent opposed it.” (“Poll: Obama’s Health Overhaul Still Unpopular, But Fewer Expect Own Care to Worsen,” Associated Press, 3/8/2012)
- A USA Today poll finds 50% say government healthcare takeover was a “bad thing.” (Susan Page, “Swing States Poll: Health Care Law Hurts Obama in 2012,” USA Today, 2/27/2012)
As the legality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – a.k.a. Obamacare – goes before the highest court in the land, here are three reasons to chuck the whole program even before it gets underway.
1. It Represents the End of Limited Government. The Supreme Court will issue its verdict later this spring of course, but there’s no question that if the government can force you to do something simply because you exist and draw breath, then the American experiment in limited government is over and done with. Whether it’s the mandating of eating broccoli or buying insurance, a government that can make you do whatever it wants just ain’t in the American grain.
2. Its Price Tag is Already Ballooning. The latest government estimate of cost tells us what we already knew. Health-care reform is going to cost us a lot more than the arm and the leg it’s supposed to save us. The Congressional Budget Office is now saying that the first full decade of Obamacare is going to cost about $1.8 trillion , or double the original estimate used to sell the program.
3. Obamacare Won’t Make Us Healthier. Health insurance isn’t the same thing as health. Most of us might end up paying more for health care under the new law, but there’s precious little evidence that coverage itself leads to lower medical costs. A 1993 study by the RAND Corporation found that “for the average person, there were no substantial benefits from free care .” Not smoking, eating moderately, and not boozing it up provide greater health benefits than any low-deductible, low-co-pay insurance plan.
For links to all claims made in the video, go to http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/25/3-reasons-to-kill-obamacare-before-it-be
For ObamaCare’s 2nd birthday Americas Future Fund has produced a video present called; The Terrible Twos:
To mark the second anniversary of Obamacare, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) delivers the Weekly Republican Address, calling for repeal and replacement of the Democrats’ health care law. On the eve of next week’s historic Supreme Court arguments on the constitutionality of the law, McConnell says it’s time to replace Obamacare with common-sense reforms Americans want, reforms that lower costs and which put health care back in the hands of individuals and their doctors, rather than Washington bureaucrats.
“Hello. I’m Mitch McConnell, U.S. Senator from Kentucky and the Republican Leader of the United States Senate.
“A little more than two years ago, at a moment when Americans were just learning some of the details of President Obama’s proposed health care law, the former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, made a comment that’s really come to embody the Washington mentality for many Americans.
“Commenting on the questions that many Americans had been voicing about the President’s health care bill, former Speaker Pelosi said that Congress would have to pass it in order to find out what was in it.
“Well, two years have gone by and this is what we know: the President was certainly right to join a call for health care reform. But the giant bill that he and others rammed through Congress has made things worse.
“That’s why, as we mark the two-year anniversary of the signing of Obamacare this week, Republicans in Congress are more committed than ever to repealing this unconstitutional law and replacing it with the kind of common-sense reforms Americans really want, reforms that actually lower costs, and which put health care back in the hands of individuals and their doctors, rather than unaccountable bureaucrats here in Washington.
“As it happens, this year’s anniversary happens to fall on the eve of historic Supreme Court arguments on Obamacare. Beginning on Monday, the nation’s highest court will hold three days of arguments to decide, among other things, whether the law’s mandate that Americans must buy government-approved health insurance is consistent with the U.S. Constitution. As one of many public officials who filed a brief before the court opposing this bill, I believe it isn’t. But even if the court disagrees with me, the consequences of this bill are reason enough to make repeal a top priority.
“As we look back at how we got to where we are today, most people would probably agree that America’s health care system has been in critical need of reform for years. Among other problems were the rising costs of health care for families, job creators and taxpayers, the exposure of too many families to potentially catastrophic health care costs, and the lack of coverage for millions of Americans.
“Yet rather than solving the most pressing problems in the old system, the Democrats’ partisan health care law has made many of those problems far worse. Costs and premiums are rising, Medicare has been raided, states now struggle to keep pace with even costlier federal mandates than before, and the economy is being sapped as new mandates hold back employers from creating new jobs.
“What’s more, Americans continue to oppose Obamacare in large numbers. A recent USA Today/Gallup poll showed that 72 percent of Americans, including most Democrats, believe the government mandate to buy health insurance violates the Constitution. This, along with a growing list of unintended consequences and broken promises, are causing many of its original supporters to take another look.
“Far from curing a rise in health care costs, Obamacare is now expected to increase health care spending by more than a quarter of a trillion dollars, and federal health care spending and subsidies by nearly $400 billion. Health care premiums for American families are expected to skyrocket by $2100 per year.
“And the White House has now admitted what they refused to acknowledge when they forced it into law: a key component of their deficit reduction claims, the CLASS Act, which is designed to deal with long-term care, can’t possibly be implemented in a financially sustainable way.
“Now they tell us.
“As for the law’s broader impact on the economy, here too the reality has proven far less appealing than the President’s rhetoric. According to the director of the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, Obamacare means 800,000 fewer jobs over the next decade. One recent private sector analysis concluded that the President’s health care law is ‘arguably the biggest impediment to hiring, particularly hiring of less skilled workers’.
“States have their own challenges. Many couldn’t afford federal health care mandates before Obamacare mandated dramatic increases in Medicaid rolls — and the costs to pay for it. Needless to say, even if states are able to meet the costs of covering as many as 25 million more Medicaid patients, the quality of care for those who rely on Medicaid would almost certainly suffer.
“In my own state of Kentucky, an estimated 387,000 more people will be forced into Medicaid — at a time when the state is already struggling to provide benefits to the recipients who are currently enrolled. Kentucky’s governor — a Democrat — is on record saying he has no idea, no idea how Kentucky will meet its responsibilities if this law forces several hundred thousand more people into the state’s Medicaid program. The math just doesn’t add up.
“And then there are America’s seniors, millions of whom have learned since the passage of this bill that the health care they have and like won’t necessarily be there in its current form for them anymore.
“President Obama was right to attempt a reform; he joined a long list of members of both parties who want to see our health care system improved. But Obamacare clearly isn’t the answer. And two years after its passage, Americans have now come to their own conclusion. They don’t like it, they think it’s unconstitutional, and they want it repealed.
“The time has come to clear the way and start over, to replace this unconstitutional law with common-sense, step-by-step reforms that lower costs and Americans support.”
‘Army of Davids’ Grows by Three
A Trio of New Candidates Adopts 9-9-9; Pledge to Take on Goliath
For Immediate Release
March 23, 2012
(Atlanta) Businessman and former presidential frontrunner Herman Cain is proud to announce a trio of candidates for U.S. office have formally adopted his 9-9-9 Economic Recovery and Jobs Program.
Steve Foley is running for Congress in California’s 47th district – an open seat.
In Georgia, Rick Allen is seeking the office of U.S. Representative in the 2nd district, the southwest corner of the state.
They are joined by Zach Poskevich whose ambition is to be the next United States Senator from Tennessee.
All three Republican candidates are drawn to the bold, solution-based ideas behind 9-9-9.
Cain praised the trio for their bold positions.
“While many candidates stand on the sidelines waiting for advisers and polling to tell them which direction to go, these candidates have demonstrated they are willing to take the lead and do what’s right,” Cain said. “They understand that in order to fix a problem, you need to be unafraid to start from scratch. That’s what 9-9-9 does – gets rid of the current disaster that is our federal tax code and starts from scratch.”
Cain looks forward to these candidates taking on the ‘Goliath’ that our federal government has become, and encourages others to step forward to do their part.
The number of candidates for federal office in 2012 who have adopted the ’9-9-9′ Economic Recovery and Jobs Program and pledged to enact it into law now stands at 31.
Candidate commitments to 9-9-9 are a part of the much broader Cain’s Solutions Revolution. To learn more, including the April 16, 2012 event “Revolution on the Hill”, please visit the website here.
For More Information:
Kathy Hoekstra, Director of Media Relations
Please meet Chris Fields who’s running for United States Congress in Minnesota’s 5th congressional district. If that district seems familiar to you, it should, it’s currently being represented by the apparently Islamic supremacist Keith Ellison… for the purpose of this introduction I’ll spare you the diatribe on Ellison and why I think he should be replaced and instead opt to have Chris tell you about himself and why he thinks he’s the best person for the job.
Why Chris is Running
Like many, I have grown increasingly concerned with the state of our nation as I have witnessed our political leaders become further entrenched in partisan politics with little to no progress. Washington, DC is no longer a place where our elected officials come together to do the work of the people. Rather, it is a sea of stubbornness filled with men and women who have lost sight of their purpose. That purpose being to provide leadership. Many of our elected officials today demonstrate that their biggest concern is getting re-elected. They neglect their responsibilities and the true desires of their constituents, who want nothing more than a non-intrusive and effective government that honors its obligations to its citizens.
“Honor, Courage and Commitment“ is instilled in every Marine. It is the reason I proudly served our country for 21 years in the United States Marine Corps. It drives the passion I possess to serve my community and it is the reason why I am running to become your Congressman.
In January 2007, when Congressman Ellison was first sworn-in to represent the people of our District, the unemployment rate was 4.6%, and the African American unemployment rate was 8%. In January 2007, the National debt was 8.6 trillion dollars.
Congressman Ellison’s lack of leadership and economic policies have badly hurt the people of our country. When he does choose to engage he chooses partisanship over leadership. The unemployment rate is now 9.1%. The total number of unemployed, under-employed, and those who have given up hope of finding a job, is even worse: 17% nationwide, and over 24% in the African American community; a level which even Democratic Congresswoman Maxine Waters says is “unconscionable.” In August 2011, for the first time since 1945, there were no new jobs created. Today, the National debt is 15 trillion dollars.
I believe that we are ready to recognize. That this is our community and not the ideological playground of politicians. Our votes have been used to divide us rather than to create solutions for all of us. The economic hardships that many of us face are being exploited and not resolved. We have seen too much decline and with strong leadership as well as effective representation we can prosper once again.
I am running because, if elected, I will fight for you and not for special interests. It is true that America is at a crossroads. We now face a broad array of tough decisions that can no longer be delayed. Washington needs a new era of leaders who are ready to put people first. I will provide the leadership required that will create jobs and get Americans back to work, and I will always put the people over a political party.
His Life of Service
Raised in the South Bronx, the oldest of three children to a teenage mother, I learned that life is a challenge. Survival for my family was not easy. My mother, determined to give us a better life, worked long hours at the local grocery store. I was often left home alone to care for my younger brother and sister.
Despite the challenges of being a young black youth, I was able to stay away from the troubles that have plagued much of the poor inner-city. I excelled in school, but with this success came a set of challenges such as ridicule, bullying, and violence from the neighborhood kids. It was during this time that my stepfather would enter our lives to influence me in ways which I could never have imagined. A young white man from the suburbs, with a dream of making the inner-city neighborhood in the South Bronx better, my stepfather began what would become one of the most successful sweat equity projects of its time. The non-profit organization he founded, Banana Kelly, still stands and serves as a reminder of what people working together can achieve.
Though I have faced many struggles during my younger years, I managed to graduate from high school the Valedictorian. College seemed like a reasonable next step for me, but that was not to be. I found a job as a messenger delivering packages in the heart of New York City. Hard working and eager to learn the ropes, I soon found myself climbing the difficult ladders in a rough and tumble business. Though rising through the ranks and rubbing elbows with NYC’s movers and shakers was exciting for a kid from the South Bronx, I still sought a higher purpose, a life of service.
I enlisted in the United States Marine Corps. In the Marine Corps I traveled around the world and fought in Iraq during the second Iraq War. Later I would earn a commission as a Marine Corps Officer and finish college with the academic distinction of Magna Cum Laude. These experiences have given me a birds-eye view of the challenges facing the world today.
I was honorably discharged from the United States Marine Corps on August 1st, 2011 and I now seek to continue my life of service to our community and country.
I am happily married to Christa Groshek, a lifelong resident of Minnesota, and I am the proud father of a 20-year old son. We make our home in the Minneapolis area.
As you drive America’s ribbon of highway, from California to the New York island, there’s one reality that can’t be escaped — gas prices keep going up, with no end in sight. But instead of taking action to bring relief to the American people, the Obama Administration is patting itself on the back for a job well done while mocking those who are calling for a commonsense energy policy.
This week saw the highest average gas price ever recorded in March — a whopping $3.87 per gallon. That’s up 4 cents from over a week ago, and 30 cents more than last year. On the West Coast, it’s up to $4.23 a gallon, but no matter where you go in America, you’ll feel the burn.
Meanwhile, the President is still beating the drums for his energy strategy, which he highlighted yesterday in a visit to the Copper Mountain Solar 1 Facility in Boulder City, Nevada. Anticipating the obvious criticism — that his investment in the Solyndra solar plant went belly up, costing American taxpayers $535 million — the President mocked those who question his ideas, saying they “lack imagination,” and he turned to name calling in order to deflect legitimate concerns about the viability of his green pipe dream and the fact that it has not produced the jobs that he promised:
One member of Congress who shall remain unnamed called these jobs ‘phony’ — called them phony jobs. I mean, think about that mindset, that attitude that says because something is new, it must not be real. If these guys were around when Columbus set sail, they’d be charter members of the Flat Earth Society.
But as Heritage’s Nick Loris points out, those who criticize the President’s policies aren’t opposed to new ideas. The Administration’s record of burning billions in taxpayer dollars to somehow transition America to a new energy economy have not produced results that earn confidence. The American people’s money is being used to offset private-sector investments and artificially prop up industries until they go bankrupt, like Solyndra, Beacon, Ener1, Abound, and so on. Only when technologies such as solar, wind, and biofuels become affordable and reliable will consumers embrace them.
While the President is out West selling his spending and tax hikes, back home in Washington his Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, is giving himself kudos for a job well done. In testimony before Congress this week, Chu was asked whether he would give himself an “A minus” on controlling the cost of gasoline. His response? “I would I say I would give myself a little higher in that since I became Secretary of Energy, I’ve been doing everything I can to get long-term solutions.” For the record, this is the same Steven Chu who said, “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe” (which are routinely above $8 per gallon). Perhaps in that context, he does deserve an “A.”
Heritage’s Rob Bluey reports that ”the Obama Administration is overseeing a sharp decline in fossil fuel production (coal, oil, and natural gas) on federal lands, which recently hit its lowest point in nine years.” Those actions include withdrawing areas offered for 77 oil and gas leases in Utah, canceling lease sales in the Western Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic coast, delaying exploration off the coast of Alaska, keeping other resource-rich areas off limits, finalizing rules that establish more hurdles to onshore oil and natural gas production on federal lands, and withdrawing 61 oil and natural gas leases in Montana as part of a lawsuit settlement over climate change.
And then there’s the issue of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would deliver 830,000 barrels of oil per day from Alberta, Canada, to Gulf Coast refineries. When given the chance to approve the project, President Obama flat out said “no.”
Now, though, he is attempting to have it both ways, and is expected to announce plans to fast-track the southern portion of the pipeline. But this is all for show, as his announcement won’t change anything. TransCanada told Bloomberg News that the President’s announcement won’t affect their schedule at all, where construction on the southern portion is already slated to begin in June.
If the President were truly supportive of the project, he would not have personally lobbied Senate Democrats two weeks ago to vote against an amendment that would have authorized construction of the entire pipeline. He cannot now say he is expediting anything. President Obama is merely putting political rhetoric over smart policy in order to appease his environmental base and boost his sagging poll numbers simultaneously.
According to Gallup, those who are following the issue favor building the pipeline by a 78-22 margin. And even including those who are not following the issue closely, the pipeline still has the support of 57 percent of the nation.
President Obama uses the language of “all of the above,” but his actions speak greater volumes. Rather than give themselves an “A” for gas prices and mock their opponents, the Obama Administration should immediately speed up the permitting and leasing processes, remove litigation risks, reform punitive regulations, and stop throwing billions in taxpayer money at broken companies like Solyndra and calling it an answer.
(Alexandria, VA) March 21–The Supreme Court ruled today in favor of an Idaho couple, Chantell and Mike Sackett, who were building a home in a residential neighborhood but had fallen victim to an Environmental Protection Agency compliance order. Their building permit was revoked after the EPA charged that they had violated the Clean Water Act by filling in their lot with rocks and dirt.
But today’s unanimous ruling by the Supreme Court allows them to appeal the order in court instead of going through a lengthy, expensive wetlands permit process.
In its briefasking the court to hear the case, written by General Counsel Peter Ferrara, the ACRU argued that:
“The Sacketts were denied any hearing to contest the Compliance Order by the EPA … the Sacketts had the choice of bearing the intractable costs of applying for a permit to discharge pollution into the navigable waters of the United States by building their home on a residential lot, as if they were a major industrial enterprise actually engaged in real pollution, and then seek judicial review of any such denial, with no prospect of getting back the intractable costs of any such application. Or they could ignore the Compliance Order, running the risk of bankrupting fines and even criminal liabilities…
“This Hobson’s choice violates the constitutional requirements of Due Process of Law, which unquestionably protect Petitioners’ property interest in building their own home. It involves a regulatory taking as well in violation of the Takings Clause, as the Sacketts are indefinitely denied the use of their property….”
Ferrara praised the ruling today, saying, “The Supreme Court today terminated a long running EPA abuse, interpreting ‘navigable waters of the United States’ to include former puddles on residential lots. Hopefully this is a sign of the coming restoration of the rule of law to be re-imposed on the EPA.”