1. As Justice Roberts indicated, the Congress is the place where ObamaCare should be declined.
a. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that there is at least $50 billion in specified and estimated authorizations of discretionary spending that might be involved in implementing that legislation and presumably thats the spending Republicans can more easily de-fund. DeMint Predicts 'A Very Intense Showdown' If Obama Opposes GOP Efforts To Defund Health Reform | ThinkProgress
2. ObamaCare authorizes spending for various endeavors, but it does not appropriate enough money to do what, on the face, it appears to do. Federal bureaucrats use authorization bills as a matter of course, but it is the appropriations that count! And these appropriations require the Republican House of Representatives.
a. Customarily, substantive legislation authorizes spending, but the funds to be spent must be separately appropriated. The ACA contains 64 specific authorizations to spend up to $105.6 billion and 51 general authorizations to spend such sums as are necessary over the period between 2010 and 2019. None of these funds will flow, however, unless Congress enacts specific appropriation bills. MMS: Error
b. section 1005 of the ACA appropriated $1 billion to support the cost of implementation in the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). This sum is a small fraction of the $5 billion to $10 billion that the Congressional Budget Office estimates the federal government will require between 2010 and 2019 to implement the ACA. Ibid.
c. It doesnt appropriate funds for the IRS to make sure folks sign up, or grants to states to create health insurance exchanges; and doesnt even authorize funding for the administrative costs for states to expand Medicaid programs.
3. If Republicans gain a majority in either house of Congress, they could not only withhold needed appropriations but also bar the use of whatever funds are appropriated for ACA implementation, including the implementation of the provisions requiring individual people to buy insurance or businesses to offer it. They could bar the use of staff time for designing rules for implementation or for paying subsidies to support the purchase of insurance. They could even bar the DHHS from writing or issuing regulations or engaging in any other federal activity related to the creation of health insurance exchanges, even though the ACA provides funds for the DHHS to make grants to the states to set up those exchanges. MMS: Error
4. The number and variety of restrictions Congress can impose in spending bills is almost unlimited. A bill passed by the House last year, for example, stipulated that no federal money could be used to buy light bulbs unless they met certain energy efficiency standards. The same bill said, No funds appropriated in this act may be used for the transportation of students or teachers in order to overcome racial imbalance in any school. House Republicans could easily pass similar provisos stating that no federal money could be used to carry out specific sections of the new health care law. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/health/policy/07health.html
5. Should Congress block funding for those exchanges, it could cripple a centerpiece of reform and trigger a cascade of unintended consequences. Here's how that could happen. First, some states might bail on their plans to set up exchanges, citing their unaffordability in the absence of federal support. Second, the feds would have no money to set up its own exchanges in states that fail to do so, as the ACA requires. Any failure to create exchanges in states by 2014 would in turn block federal insurance subsidies to individuals and tax credits to small firms in those states. So individuals would still be required to buy insurance, but their employers would be less likely to cover them. If they didn't have insurance through their employer, they'd have to purchase it on their own without government help. The natural result: a consumer revolt in which many people would simply refuse to buy coverage, How Republicans Could Cripple Healthcare Reform by "Defunding" It - CBS News
This is the way government should work.
In November, the people will speak, and if the House remains Republican, and the Senate becomes Republican.....it won't matter if the fraud at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue remains.....
But...there is this:
"The common wisdom holds that 'both parties' have to appeal to the extremes during the primary and then move to the center for the general election. To the contrary, both parties run for office as conservatives. Once they have fooled the voters and are safely in office, Republicans sometimes double-cross the voters. Democrats always do."
Coulter, 11-27-03
a. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that there is at least $50 billion in specified and estimated authorizations of discretionary spending that might be involved in implementing that legislation and presumably thats the spending Republicans can more easily de-fund. DeMint Predicts 'A Very Intense Showdown' If Obama Opposes GOP Efforts To Defund Health Reform | ThinkProgress
2. ObamaCare authorizes spending for various endeavors, but it does not appropriate enough money to do what, on the face, it appears to do. Federal bureaucrats use authorization bills as a matter of course, but it is the appropriations that count! And these appropriations require the Republican House of Representatives.
a. Customarily, substantive legislation authorizes spending, but the funds to be spent must be separately appropriated. The ACA contains 64 specific authorizations to spend up to $105.6 billion and 51 general authorizations to spend such sums as are necessary over the period between 2010 and 2019. None of these funds will flow, however, unless Congress enacts specific appropriation bills. MMS: Error
b. section 1005 of the ACA appropriated $1 billion to support the cost of implementation in the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). This sum is a small fraction of the $5 billion to $10 billion that the Congressional Budget Office estimates the federal government will require between 2010 and 2019 to implement the ACA. Ibid.
c. It doesnt appropriate funds for the IRS to make sure folks sign up, or grants to states to create health insurance exchanges; and doesnt even authorize funding for the administrative costs for states to expand Medicaid programs.
3. If Republicans gain a majority in either house of Congress, they could not only withhold needed appropriations but also bar the use of whatever funds are appropriated for ACA implementation, including the implementation of the provisions requiring individual people to buy insurance or businesses to offer it. They could bar the use of staff time for designing rules for implementation or for paying subsidies to support the purchase of insurance. They could even bar the DHHS from writing or issuing regulations or engaging in any other federal activity related to the creation of health insurance exchanges, even though the ACA provides funds for the DHHS to make grants to the states to set up those exchanges. MMS: Error
4. The number and variety of restrictions Congress can impose in spending bills is almost unlimited. A bill passed by the House last year, for example, stipulated that no federal money could be used to buy light bulbs unless they met certain energy efficiency standards. The same bill said, No funds appropriated in this act may be used for the transportation of students or teachers in order to overcome racial imbalance in any school. House Republicans could easily pass similar provisos stating that no federal money could be used to carry out specific sections of the new health care law. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/health/policy/07health.html
5. Should Congress block funding for those exchanges, it could cripple a centerpiece of reform and trigger a cascade of unintended consequences. Here's how that could happen. First, some states might bail on their plans to set up exchanges, citing their unaffordability in the absence of federal support. Second, the feds would have no money to set up its own exchanges in states that fail to do so, as the ACA requires. Any failure to create exchanges in states by 2014 would in turn block federal insurance subsidies to individuals and tax credits to small firms in those states. So individuals would still be required to buy insurance, but their employers would be less likely to cover them. If they didn't have insurance through their employer, they'd have to purchase it on their own without government help. The natural result: a consumer revolt in which many people would simply refuse to buy coverage, How Republicans Could Cripple Healthcare Reform by "Defunding" It - CBS News
This is the way government should work.
In November, the people will speak, and if the House remains Republican, and the Senate becomes Republican.....it won't matter if the fraud at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue remains.....
But...there is this:
"The common wisdom holds that 'both parties' have to appeal to the extremes during the primary and then move to the center for the general election. To the contrary, both parties run for office as conservatives. Once they have fooled the voters and are safely in office, Republicans sometimes double-cross the voters. Democrats always do."
Coulter, 11-27-03