Obamacare’s Best Allies: The Courts And The Republicans

By ruling for the government in the case of King v. Burwell, the Supreme Court once again tied itself into rhetorical and logical knots to defend Obamacare. In King, the court disregarded Obamacare’s clear language regarding eligibility for federal health care subsides, on the grounds that enforcing the statute as written would cause havoc in the marketplace. The court found that Congress could not have intended this result and that the court needed to uphold Congress’s mythical intention and ignore Obamacare’s actual language.

While Obamacare may be safe from court challenges, its future is far from assured. As Obamacare forces more Americans to pay higher insurance premiums while causing others to lose their insurance or lose access to the physicians of their choice, opposition to Obamacare will grow. Additional Americans will turn against Obamacare as their employers reduce their hours, along with their paychecks, because of Obamacare’s mandates.

As dissatisfaction with Obamacare grows, there will be renewed efforts to pass a single-payer health care system. Single-payer advocates will point to Obamacare’s corporatist features as being responsible for its failures and claim the only solution is to get the private sector completely out of health care.

Unfortunately, many Republicans will inadvertently aid the single-payer advocates by failing to acknowledge that Obamacare is not socialist but corporatist, and that that the pre-Obamacare health care system was hobbled by government intervention. In fact, popular support for Obamacare was rooted in the desire to address problems created by prior government interference in the health care marketplace.

Republicans also help the cause of socialized medicine by pretending that Obamacare can be fixed with minor reforms. These Republicans do not understand that replacing Obamacare with “Obamacare Lite” will still leave millions of Americans with inadequate access to quality health care, and could strengthen the movement for a single-payer system.

Republicans’ failure to advocate for a free-market health care system is not just rooted in intellectual error and political cowardice. The insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and the other special interests that benefit from a large government role in health care are just as — or perhaps even more — influential in the Republican Party as in the Democratic Party. The influence of these interests is one reason why, despite their free-market rhetoric, Republicans have a long history of expanding the government’s role in health care.

Those who think a Republican president and Congress will enact free-market health care should consider that the last time Republicans controlled Congress and the White House, their signature health care achievement was to expand federal health care spending and entitlements. Furthermore, Richard Nixon worked with Ted Kennedy to force all health care plans to offer a health maintenance organization (HMO). Even Obamacare’s individual mandate originated in a conservative think tank and was first signed into law by a Republican governor.

Instead of Obamacare Lite, Congress should support giving individuals direct control over their health care dollars through individual health care tax credits and expanded access to health savings accounts. Other reforms like long-term group insurance could ensure that those with “pre-existing conditions” have access to care. Another good reform is negative outcomes insurance that could help resolve the medical malpractice crisis.

America’s health care system is just as unsustainable as our foreign policy and our monetary system. At some point, the financial and human costs of Obamacare will prove overwhelming; and Congress will be forced to replace this system. Hopefully, before this happens, a critical mass of people will convince Congress to replace Obamacare with a truly free-market health care system.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Watch: Chris Christie Announces 2016 Run

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie officially entered Monday in what is an already crowded field of Republican presidential candidates. His rollout, including a Jersey-esque slogan “Telling It Like It Is,” focused on his family roots, the economy, and Washington gridlock.

Christie made the announcement from his high school in Livingston, N.J., Tuesday beside his wife Mary Pat and his four children – Andrew, Sarah, Patrick, and Bridget. “I had to come home, and Livingston is home for me,” Christie said.

The second-term governor acknowledged his brother and sister, Todd and Dawn, and his parents, who were both raised by single mothers.

The New Jersey governor also cited his time as U.S. attorney. “That fight has not made me more weary. It has made me stronger, and I am now ready to fight for the people of the United States of America,” he said.

Christie touted his accomplishments in reforming the Garden State public worker pension and benefit system, as well as reforming teacher tenure, two hotly contested issues.

The governor said that in the past year, he visited 37 states and argued that Americans “are not angry” but “filled with anxiety.” He added: “The president doesn’t talk to Congress and the Congress doesn’t talk to the president.”

We have to do it together; we have no choice but to work together. This country has no choice but to work together again, not against each other.

This statement could be perceived as a jab at some of the other Republican candidates in the race already serving in Washington, including Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas; Rand Paul, R-Ky.; and Marco Rubio, R-Fla. Christie also called for 4 percent economic growth. “We gotta get this country growing again,” he told the friendly crowd. “We have an economy that is weak.”

We need a tax code that is simplified and will put CPAs like my dad outta business.

Turning his attention to foreign policy, Christie said that after seven years of the Obama administration, President Obama “lives in his own world, not our world.” He also took a jab at the former secretary of State:

After seven years of a feckless foreign policy, we better not turn it over to his second mate Hillary Clinton… We better stop caring about being loved and start caring about being respected.

Christie’s campaign released this video ahead of the announcement:

Matt Rooney, a family-law attorney and editor of Save Jersey–one of the most widely rest conservative websites in the Garden State–applauded Christie’s showing today but contended he has a lot more to do if he is to get back in the mix. “The country is learning that he’s the best retail politician since Bill Clinton. Love him or hate him, the guy can give a speech,” Rooney said. “Most of what your average outside New Jersey primary voter has seen, to date, is sound bites.” Rooney, who has followed the governor since his time at Rutgers Law School, was “surprised” by Christie’s decision to make the speech jersey-centric. “It’s risky because New Jersey is not in good financial condition, and the state’s brand nationally is not the best. But he appears prepared to live and die on his record,” he noted. One person following the speech put into context what that means:

While the RealClearPolitics average has Christie polling in the single digits, Rooney expects the governor to get a bump–but points out the stakes are higher for him, as opposed to former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina:

She doesn’t have his name recognition but she also doesn’t have negatives among prospective GOP voters that rival Trump’s. One recent poll found more than 50 percent of primary voters not willing to consider voting for Christie before the general election. It’s harder to change minds than make a first impression.

Christie will also have to answer for Bridgegate, the scandal in which a former high-level staffer allegedly ordered lanes on the Fort Lee, N.J., side of the George Washington Bridge to be closed going into New York, allegedly because the town’s mayor did not endorse the governor for his reelection bid.

If you would like to watch the entire announcement, here it is:

Does Christie have a chance? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Right Before Jindal Announced His Candidacy, Libs Made This Insane Attack On His Past

The Washington Post published an article Tuesday, one day before Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal announced his intention to run for president, in which reporters Annie Gowen and Tyler Bridges explored the Indian-American candidate’s cultural heritage.

With a dateline of Khanpur, India, however, the article begins on a critical note by suggesting Jindal has abandoned his homeland. The authors highlighted the fact that “residents of his father’s village” celebrated Jindal’s 2003 election win after many villagers “spent three days praying at a local temple for his victory.”

Describing the “sunbaked narrow lanes and modest homes ringed by undulating rice paddies,” the article indicated that residents of the Indian village believed Jindal would serve as a “powerful ally in the U.S.”

Instead, the authors pointed out, the Jindal family has not returned to the land of its ancestors since the governor’s grandparents died roughly 20 years ago.

After chronicling the Jindals’ transition from Hindu to Catholicism, the article quoted one professor who concluded there is “not much Indian left in Bobby Jindal.”

Many conservative sites were quick to admonish the Post for harping on such an inconsequential issue.

Chicks on the Right’s Miss CJ summarized the left’s position, writing: “if Bobby Jindal’s gonna become the governor of Louisiana, he sure as heck better be using his office [to] help out his relatives back in India.”

A number of social media users also weighed in, including several who pointed out the perceived double standard by which left-leaning media operate.

“So I’m assuming no one got fired at the @washingtonpost for being so racist towards Bobby Jindal,” one Twitter user wrote.

Is Jindal’s connection to his grandparents’ hometown a relevant issue for national media to exploit? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Conservative Lawmakers Went Against Boehner Last Week; Now He’s Taking This Revenge

House Speaker John Boehner continues to punish GOP members of Congress who break ranks.

Last week, 34 conservative Republicans voted against a procedural rule that would have advanced the vote on Trade Promotion Authority. President Obama has sought to re-establish so-called “fast-track” negotiation authority, which requires Congress to approve or disapprove a trade deal within a certain time frame, without amendments. The move is seen as critical for the approval of the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement later this year.

Today, Congress voted to grant that authority to the president for another six years.

Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., was among the 34 who voted against the procedural rule last week. He was chairman of the Government Operations subcommittee; however, after the vote, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, gave Meadows the option of resigning his position or being fired.

Boehner when questioned about the move said: “I think the chairman made the right decision.” He added: “I made it clear to the members I supported that decision and I don’t think I need to say a whole lot more. But I’m sure the family conversation will continue.”

“In the wake of the procedural vote on Trade Promotion Authority, Reps. Trent Franks of Arizona, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming and Steve Pearce of New Mexico were removed from the GOP whip team. The members each defied House Republican leadership in voting against the deal,” according to the Daily Signal.

“[The speaker] signaled he has no plans ease up on lawmakers who stray on key votes,” the Washington Examiner reported. “We have a majority and when it comes to procedural votes in the House, the majority has to stick together and vote for…those procedural motions,” he said.

Boehner used the same word choice of having a “family conversation” after Reps. Justin Amash of Michigan, Tim Huelskamp of Kansas, David Schweikert of Arizona, and Walter Jones of North Carolina were kicked off their committees after they didn’t vote for him to be speaker during the 113th Congress.

The Daily Signal reports that this session, “Reps. Daniel Webster and Richard Nugent, both of Florida, were removed from the powerful Rules Committee after voting for other members during the speaker election in January.”

With regards to Nugent, “Campaign checks from corporate political action committees have all but dried up. GOP leaders have prohibited him from traveling on congressional trips overseas. Bills that Nugent has written have been snatched away and doled out to other members of the House Republican Conference,” according to Politico.

The House Freedom Caucus (made up of between 30 and 40 conservative lawmakers) met Tuesday night to discuss Meadows’ removal from his chairmanship. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, its chairman, recounted: “We had a good discussion. I’ll leave it at that,” regarding the House GOP leadership’s tactics.

The Freedom Caucus could make life difficult for Boehner when he seeks to move legislation that requires strong Republican support.

Meadows, who is a member of the caucus, said regarding his removal: “There is no honor in bowing to a bully.” He added: “There is only honor in fighting a good fight—win or lose. This is not a fight I will back down from.”

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Obama Assisting al-Qaeda In Saudi Arabia’s War Against Shia Islam

President Barack Obama still continues to assist Islamic Sunni fighters including al-Qaeda, and the Republicans in Congress still support him. When does this stupidity end?

On Sunday, June 7, 2015, under the direction of President Obama, air strikes were conducted by Air Force and Navy attack aircraft in support of al-Qaeda.

U.S.-led coalition airplanes carried out four airstrikes against the Islamic State (ISIL) in the town of Suran in the Aleppo province during a battle between the Islamic State and the Islamist coalition led by Al-Qaeda affiliate Jabhat al-Nusra.

The Islamic State had seized control of Suran the prior week and has since been fighting an alliance of Islamist rebels, including Al Qaeda affiliate Al-Nusra Front and the Ahrar al-Sham movement in the surrounding area.

The previous month, Obama ordered air strikes against both Al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham. The last Obama-ordered strike against the al-Qaeda affiliate was on May 20th, near Aleppo
province in Syria, in which 15 Al-Nusra fighters were killed.

In May, our tax dollars were used to bomb al-Nusra; and in June, our tax dollars were used to bomb the Islamic State and help al-Nusra take a town. All of the fighters involved are Sunni.

Summing up in a paragraph: Three to four years ago, the United States helped to arm the al-Qaeda offshoot which became the Islamic State (ISIL) with the idea that it was more “moderate” than Jabhat al-Nusra–which is part of al-Qaeda. Then the United States armed Sunni fighters such as the Hazzm Movement, associated with the Free Syrian Army, to fight al-Nusra and the Islamic State. But the Hazzm Brigade joined with al-Nusra in January 2015. Obama then ordered the bombing of al-Nusra along with the Hazzm Brigade, which we had armed and trained. Then this month, we bombed the ISIL during a battle to help al-Nusra and other al-Qaeda affiliated groups, including the Hazzm Brigade.

If you understand the paragraph above, congratulations–because I wrote it, and I don’t even understand it. No one can understand the so-called strategy of President Barack Obama in Syria. What is even more mind-boggling is that Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham want President Obama to do more of whatever it is he is doing.

President Obama and a majority of Republican Senators want to somehow defeat the secular government of Syria dominated by Shiites and disband that nation’s army, just as was done in Iraq. At the same time, they want to defeat the Islamic State, as well as all al-Qaeda-associated groups including al-Nusra. After all these groups are defeated, including the ones we armed and trained in the past, the final goal is to establish a “democracy” in Syria. That really worked well for us in Iraq, Libya, and Yemen, didn’t it?

What is the result of the plans advocated by Barack Obama, John McCain, and Lindsey Graham? Their plans are destroying the churches founded by the Apostles including Peter, Paul, and John. Hundreds of thousands of Christians driven from their homes. Thousands of Christian men murdered. Thousands of Christian women and young girls forced into Islamic marriages. Married Christian women having been used as sex slaves passed from one Sunni fighter to the next. That, and millions of both Christian and Muslim refugees starving in UN camps.

Reality check: The Islamic fighters whom we are arming, training, and paying a monthly salary hate every aspect of America’s secular society.

Yet, President Obama and his pals in the Senate, such as John McCain and Lindsey Graham, have the absurd belief that Sunni Muslim fighters they arm and train are actually going to carry out the will of a gay-loving, dope-smoking, alcohol-consuming, over-eating, feminist-dominated secular nation such as the United States, which they view as the great Satan!

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth