ObamaCare is Being Nullified by Governors Refusing to Open Exchanges

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: Email | RSS

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Audio and Transcript – If the Feds cannot implement a plan to make use of our medical services, if they cannot implement a plan to take over and micromanage and manage our healthcare services, medical services, the medical services industry for all of us, what makes anyone think they can take over and manage our consumption of drugs for 314 million people?  What makes you think they can take over and manage the administration of how we generate energy in our states, how we educate children in the states?  My point is that they can’t do any of these things if the state legislatures and the people in the state don’t go along.  Maybe this has been the out all along.  Maybe those of us that have been counseling nullification and interposition and the election of governors that would say no to the exchanges, maybe that has always been the remedy that would deliver the repeal of ObamaCare that was so desired by so many. Check out the rest in today’s audio and transcript…

 

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  The ObamaCare law, or the Affordable Care Act as it’s properly known, the statutes and the way it was constructed, it was always predicated upon the states accepting and actually running it much the way they do Medicaid, SCHIP and other things like that.  It’s almost like you’re in a Wizard of Oz kind of dream here.  If you click your heels three times together and say “There’s no place like home” and if home says no, then there is no ObamaCare, wouldn’t that be the story of the decade?  You see where I’m going with this?

AG:  I have zero confidence in the ability of the federal government to implement this to begin with.  What am I expecting in 2014 as it officially rolls out?  I don’t know.  I actually have no idea if I’m going to be able to notice anything tangibly different.  Is it a smokescreen of what’s actually taking place?  I guess so.  That’s definitely a possibility.

Mike:  That would mean then we have participated in a two-year-long fraud.  There are members of this audience that I know have read the entire ObamaCare statute from start to finish.  Congressman Gohmert, I know, has read it.  He has said: I know how it’s going to be implemented, Mike, and you’re not going to like it and no one is going to like it.  The key words there are “going to be implemented.”  As we keep learning, every time a governor says no, what does the Secretary, the arch villain, of Health and Inhuman Disservices, Ms. Sebelius, what does she do?  She extends the deadline.  Remember this deadline was the first week in November.  Here we are now in the first week in December.  You have 21 states, 40 percent roughly, saying no, not going to do your silly exchanges.  I would think that without the states going along with this and without the states biting the bullet and actually agreeing to run this thing, that there is no ObamaCare.  None of the other death panels, none of the other clauses in there and regulatory boards and procedures and bureaus and agencies that were going to be set up, none of them will work if the states don’t go along with this.

May I make the astute point at this juncture that if that is the case and you’re wondering how you get rid of X agency, like the Department of Education, if the states don’t go along with it, then the federal government doesn’t have the power.  It never did.  We are so consumed with what they want us to think.  Well, federal judges have ruled on this.  So?  Ignore them.  Like Andrew Jackson famously said of John Marshall once: Judge Marshall has made his ruling, now let him enforce it.  There is no enforcement mechanism.  If you believe in the Constitution as a compact between sovereign entities that have agreed to federate to like causes and common concern, which is what it is, and if the usefulness of those concerns exceeds the people’s desire for them, then again we find ourselves exactly where I have been predicting we would find ourselves, with a constitutional crisis on our hands.

If the Feds cannot implement a plan to make use of our medical services, if they cannot implement a plan to take over and micromanage and manage our healthcare services, medical services, the medical services industry for all of us, what makes anyone think they can take over and manage our consumption of drugs for 314 million people?  What makes you think they can take over and manage the administration of how we generate energy in our states, how we educate children in the states?  My point is that they can’t do any of these things if the state legislatures and the people in the state don’t go along.  Maybe this has been the out all along.  Maybe those of us that have been counseling nullification and interposition and the election of governors that would say no to the exchanges, maybe that has always been the remedy that would deliver the repeal of ObamaCare that was so desired by so many.

It is becoming apparent, though, you must admit, no matter how you view this, that the Affordable Care Act cannot be an act of one federal legislature that is to be implemented and then foisted upon the heads of all 314 million people.  I think we can safely conclude that that is not going to happen.  The other part of this menace would be to implement any part of this now, the states have to go along with it, meaning states would have to appoint some of these boards as well.  Inside a state, if you really believe Mrs. Palin and there are death panels in ObamaCare, there’s a very good chance that someone inside your state government is either going to be appointed or hired to sit on this panel to decide who gets what kind of care and who doesn’t.  Think about that for a moment.  We’ve always thought of the state exchanges as being run by evil zealots that work for the federal government.  What if they work for the State of Louisiana?  What if they work for the State of Texas?  Hell, what if they just have to be hired to go to work for the State of Louisiana, Kentucky, Tennessee or Texas?

I’m just thinking this out loud and working this through in real time with you, my friends.  Think about this.  This would then mean that all of what the general government tortures us with cannot be done without the aid and assistance of either state legislatures or the people of the several states.  All this protestation that we have lodged against the excesses of the Feds, maybe the power has always been right there in the hands of the people if we were just to believe that is the case, stick to your principles on that and refuse to yield.  You might have a solution to an awful lot of problems out there.  You know what else this says?  This says that republicanism actually is the antidote.  Of course, republicanism is defined as local government by local people acting directly on the laws that affect them locally and directly.  That is the definition of republicanism.  That is what founded the United States of America.  That is what founded all the townships, counties, cities that made up the United States or the colonies, then the united colonies before there was a United States.  What if I have been correct all along, channeling Jefferson and Taylor of Caroline and the rest of them?

This is according to the Huffington Post now:

[reading]

The health care reform law permits the federal government to create and manage health insurance exchanges in states that don’t build their own, but the law’s authors intended for states to share the financial and regulatory burden. Poor coordination between a state and the federal agency operating an exchange could impeded the ability of uninsured people to gain health coverage under the law. [Mike: I would write that differently, “would impeded the ability of scofflaw parasites to attach themselves to the body of people that are productive and coerce them through federal government law and threat of imprisonment to purchase health insurance on their behalf.” That’s how that should be written.] In addition, states that step aside cede control over key decisions about how Obamacare is implemented, such as what health insurance companies are allowed to sell plans in a state.

[end reading]

Mike:  You want to try implementing that?  Commerce Clause gives the general government the power to regulate commerce, that means to make it regular.  It does not give the general government the power to say what may or may not be sold in the state from another state.  It’s supposed to break these barriers down not erect them.


End Mike Church Show Transcript