Posted on 07/12/2012 8:13:28 PM PDT by maggiesnotebook
Judge Andrew Napolitano makes it clear that the House repeal of ObamaCare for the 31st time has "real teeth to it," and affirms that States which do not want to set up health care exchanges, legally do not have to set up health care exchanges. See the video below an listen to what Napolitano says about how Romney can handle ObamaCare with both the House and Senate controlled by Democrats.
The following is most of the transcript. I've added a link to background information on Governor Rick Perry's decision rejecting health care exchanges and Medicaid expansion
[JUDGE NAPOLITANO]...there is an Achilles heel to it [the statute]. The whole purpose of the statute, according to the President and it's supporters, was to provide health care for everyone in the United States of America.One of the keys to that was the State health insurance exchanges, basically expanding Medicaid for people who cannot get health insurance anywhere else. It would be paid. Ninety percent by the Federal Government, 10% by the States.
The numbers fluctuate. That's a general ratio. THAT'S THE PART THAT WAS DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL by the Supreme Court, because the Congress, when it ordered the States to set up these exchanges said 'set them up - if you don't not only will we not give you the 90% on this, we're going to hold back the other Medicaid funds that we owe you.'
The Court said Congress cannot threaten the States with such financial devastation as to impair their sovereignty as States - so, Governor Perry [Texas] is absolutely correct when he says it is lawful for Texas not to set up the exchange. So is Governor Christie [New Jersey], so is the Governor of Florida, so is the Governor of Michigan.
[ANCHOR] So what happens Judge?
[JUDGE NAPOLITANO] That's the $64,000 question. If the whole purpose of the statute was to provide health care for those who can't get it elsewhere, there are 17 million people who were led to believe they could go to these exchanges. It will exist in New York because a Democratic Governor and a Democratic legislature want it, but in the vast majority of the country - the statute was challenged by 26 states - these exchanges will not exist.
Who will pay for them? The Federal Government, which means taxpayers.
If the [U.S.] House has to appropriate funds for these exchanges, and refuses to do so, they will not exist, so this exercise in the House that appears just a political battle between Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader Pelosi, has real teeth to it, because the President, after election day, whether he wins or loses, is going to come to the House saying 'give me the money I need to fund the exchanges' and this House will say 'no way.'
[ANCHOR] So what happens along the way - there is an election?
[JUDGE NAPOLITANO] If Mitt Romney is elected President, he has a lot of discretion as to how to enforce laws. Let's say Mitt Romney is elected President and Democrats control both Houses [Chambers], what can he do? A Lot! There is a lot of discretion in the statute. For example: the IRS is in the Treasury Department. The Secretary of the Treasury is appointed by the President. He could basically say, 'you know, I want those things that John Roberts says are taxes - they're really penalties. I don't feel like penalizing people in a recession, so we are not going to collect them. There is a lot of discretion the President has.
bfl
The whole bill is unconstitutional.
” - - - - He could basically say, ‘you know, I want those things that John Roberts says are taxes - they’re really penalties. I don’t feel like penalizing people in a recession, so we are not going to collect them.”
Would Romney have the backbone to do that?
One problem is I thought that a Lot of the Money to set up these exchanges has already been allocated,I live in Connecticut and they are Gung Ho on Getting these exchanges
bump and....nice website.
Thank you!
Thank you for reading.
Thanks. I appreciate your coming to my website!
Unfortunately, it’s only unconstitutional of 5 USSC justices say so.
Even if Obama gets re-elected many states will opt out of Obamacare.
Of course the states that decide to remain in the figurative Sodom and Gomorrah states that do want Obamacare will see a flood of refugees on a much grander scale than Katrina did to Houston Texas.
Unfortunately, it’s only unconstitutional of 5 USSC justices say so.
Not really.
Justice Story in his “History of the Constitution” calls judicial decisions - even those of the Supreme Court - “evidence of the law”.
In other words, their decisions and opinions carry very great weight, but are not absolute or concrete.
The feds hold the States hostage in thousands of laws:
1. Make sealt belts mandatory we we withhold highway funds.
2. Make the drinking age 21 or else the feds withhold highway funds.
3. Make...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.