Once Upon A Time In America

Once Upon a Time  ……  immigrants came to American as we were a young and rapidly expanding nation offering opportunity to anyone willing to work hard and take a chance on themselves.  We stood with open arms, asking for the help from others that was needed to make our nation grow and prosper.   But that was long ago and while America is still looked upon as the land of opportunity, it is not necessarily opportunity that so many who wish to cross the border into our country are now looking for.

Over the past 50 years a profane transformation of our nation’s immigration policies has taken place.  A desire to welcome those who enter the United States illegally has been perpetuated by the liberal faction in this country with absolute disregard to the burden that doing so places on the resources created, paid for and consumed by the hard working and law abiding men, women and children of this nation.  No longer drawn in by the vast opportunities that were once available and offered by a fledgling county, the transformation of our immigration policies now incents illegal’s to cross our borders so that they can take advantage of the free offerings our government is now legally bound to provide them. 

While there are some immigrants, illegal or otherwise, that do come to this country still willing to take the risk and work hard for the opportunity to prosper in the greatest nation in the world, there are far too many that cross our boarders seeking no more than the handouts that our government has promised them.  It is a promise that should never have been made.

Nowhere in the constitution is it written that the United States is a land without closed border nor does the constitution stipulate that all who try and enter this great nation will be met with open arms and that the government has an obligation to ensure the health and well-being of those who cross our borders.  These are merely the profane transformations of our nation’s immigrations policies that have become a huge burden on our country.

ObamaCare Open Enrollment Starts Tomorrow

It is hard to fathom that more than seven months have passed since the first ObamaCare open enrollment period ended.  It is also difficult to understand why the Obama Administration remains tight lipped on enrollment numbers.

Certainly the folks over at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have by now tallied up the figures.  They must know the exact number of formerly uninsured nonelderly people that signed up for healthcare insurance on one of the state and federal healthcare exchanges as well the number who did so whom were insured prior to the ObamaCare rollout.  Let’s not forget about the number of young and healthy that have signed up for ObamaCare, that oh so critical demographic that is needed to cover the high cost of insuring the sick and the elderly.

Show Me The Numbers

HHS has been less than forthcoming in providing enrollment figures making it seem as though the self-proclaimed most transparent administration in history might just be hiding something, and they are. 

The whole idea behind the ObamaCare method of healthcare reform is to stop people from using the emergency room as their healthcare plan by providing them access to affordable healthcare. 

For the poor, access to affordable healthcare was accomplished through the expansion of the Medicaid system, a taxpayer funded payment mechanism that provides free or near free access to healthcare to those that qualify.  Medicaid by no means provides individuals with healthcare insurance, it merely gives those whose lesser income qualifies them for the program the peace of mind in knowing that someone will be there to pick up the tab when they are in need of healthcare.

Early on in the first enrollment period, the number that HHS claimed to have signed up for the Medicaid expansion was called into question.  The enrollment numbers being claimed were staggering and as it turns out, HHS was reporting all Medicaid enrollments, both reoccurring and those due to the expansion. 

HHS excused allegations that they were purposely propping up the Medicaid enrollment number in an attempt to boost the laws popularity.  HHS stated that there was no way to differentiate if an enrollment was reoccurring or new as there was no mechanism in place for enrollees to make this distinction.  Ironically, the number of people that have signed up for Medicaid, as a direct result of the expansion, is one of the very few numbers that HHS is currently able to provide and reports this figure to be 7.2 million.

The number of formerly uninsured nonelderly individuals who have actually purchased, paid for and retained a qualified healthcare plan from one of the healthcare exchanges remains as elusive as Big Foot and the Loch Ness Monster.  HHS has provided a total number of qualified healthcare plans that were purchased from the healthcare exchanges during the initial open enrollment period but has refused to make the distinction as to how many of these plans were purchased by the formerly insure and the formerly uninsured.

HHS has also adopted an enrolment figure drawn from a Gallup study of the uninsured.  The Gallup study revealed a sharp drop in the number of uninsured during the last quarter of 2013 and the first quarter of 2014, the period of which the ObamaCare open enrollment covered.  The drop ended abruptly at the start of second quarter 2014.  Gallup quantified the reduction in the number of uninsured as 10.3 million and attributed the reduction to the Affordable Care Act, aka ObamaCare.  It must be noted that the Gallup study includes those who have access to healthcare through Medicaid.

If one were so inclined, they could remove the 7.2 million, whom HHS states have benefited from the Medicaid expansion, from the 10.3 million reduction in the nations uninsured, as reported in the Gallup study, to arrive at the number of formerly uninsured that gained healthcare coverage during the first open enrollment period.  HHS has not been so inclined to make this simple analysis however, at least not out loud.

It is unclear as to why HHS adopted the Gallup survey over similar studies conducted or even over their own data.  The likely answer to this question is that other enrolment conclusions drawn using the Gallup’s figures, as unattractive as they are, looked the best.

They Moved the Bar

There was a valuable lesson learned during the first open enrollment period.

Two thirds the way through the first open enrollment period the popularity of ObamaCare looked to be facing numbers as low as 50% of the 7 million forecast.  Looking to lessen the embarrassment, the enrollment bar was lowered to 6 million.  But a last minute surge in enrollment, likely caused by those whose policy cancelations where kicking in, pushed enrollment over the 8 million mark.  Not only did the administration overt what looked to be an enrollment disaster, by lowering the bar they were now able to claim that enrollment exceeded expectations by 35%.

It appears that they are taking heed to the lesson learned in the first round as HHS has recently released that the goal for 2015 is to reduce the number of the nation’s uninsured by 9.1 million at the close of the second enrollment period, down 30% from the original projection 13 million.

Already claiming that 7.1 million have obtained a qualified healthcare plan, as a direct result of ObamaCare, HHS needs to add only 2 million to the count to achieve their 2015 goal.  Anything beyond 2 million will be used by the Obama Administration to boast what they want people to believe is the growing popularity of the healthcare law.   

Sadly, both enrollment claims and projections provided by HHS have been highly deceptive.  Enrollment projections stated by HHS have always come from forecasts provided by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) which reflect the annual reduction in the number of uninsured nonelderly, as a result of ObamaCare.  At no time has the CBO analysis ever included a component that takes into account the number of formerly insured that have transfer over to one of the healthcare exchanges.

Yet, HHS and the president himself repeatedly compare ObamaCare enrollment to the CBO forecast when measuring the success of the controversial healthcare law.  This apples to oranges comparison is highly deceptive and most certainly intentional.  If an apples to apples comparison were made, i.e. the number of formerly uninsured nonelderly that have gained insurance through ObamaCare vs. the CBO forecast, proponents of the law would have a difficult time fending off the opposition’s calls for repeal.

2nd Wave of Cancelations

A second round of individual insurance plan cancelations are already underway and most definitely will be the tool to which drives up enrollment on the state and federal healthcare exchanges as was the case in 2014.

The ObamaCare driven cancelation of individual insurance plans made up for 56% of the 2014 enrollment.  It will be some time before we know the effect that the second round of cancelations will have on the number who enroll on one of the state and federal healthcare exchanges during the 2015 open enrollment period but you can be assured that HHS will count those towards the enrollment goal of 9.1 million, just as they have in the past.

Many small-group insurance plans are also expected to receive cancelation notices this year and the number could run up into the millions.

Insures Cannot Be Too Happy

The insurance companies are watching closely and they cannot be all too happy with how ObamaCare is shaping up. 

In the negotiations to secure their participation on the healthcare exchanges, insurers were promised that 25 million new participants would be added to the insurance marketplace by 2016.  With roughly 3 million having been added in 2014 and another 2 million forecasted to be added in 2015, the Obama Administration has set itself a pretty lofty goal for 2016.

Maybe the president has a plan B, which is what those who oppose ObamaCare are most afraid of.

Eric Holder Is AWOL in Ferguson

Nearly three months since a grand jury began to hear evidence in the police shooting death of a black teenager, deliberations, which will determine if there will be calm or chaos in the streets of Ferguson, Missouri, are expected to begin any time now.

The death of 18 year old Michael Brown, on August 9^th, was followed by several days of civil unrest by hundreds of angered residents of the predominantly black community of Ferguson.  The incident gained national attention which included President Obama addressing the nation in the matter and a one day visit to the town of Ferguson by our nation’s top cop, US Attorney General Eric Holder.

Eric Holder’s short visit to Ferguson included cursory visits to an area school, community college, and with a small number of community members who gathered in a local restaurant.  Holder also spent time discussing the tenuous relationship between the community and local police with members of Ferguson’s law enforcement, community and religious leaders.  What Eric Holder’s visit to Ferguson did not include was face to face dialog with was the hundreds of community member hell bent in burning the town down if a police officer Daren Wilson is not indicted for the shooting death of Michael Brown.

Since Eric Holders departure, tension between community members and law enforcement in Ferguson remains high.  Nightly protests continue and are often punctuated with acts of civil disobedience and violence.  Local law enforcement, which is often the target of the protestor’s anger, has had little success in defusing the situation.

For some time now, what has been needed in the town of Ferguson is for a strong black figurehead to come in and open a dialog with the protestors, a voice of reason to help explain to the community the judicial process that is taking place with the grand jury and the importance of accepting the outcome of that process, a person such as Eric Holder.

Yet, after vowing to help the community through its healing process, Holder has been unable to carve out a single day in his schedule to visit the people of Ferguson.  Just one day would have likely prevented much of the violence that has transpired in the streets of Ferguson over the past three months.  Just one day might make the difference between peaceful protest and a city going up in flames if in fact the grand jury finds no grounds on which to charge Officer Wilson.

The racial tensions that have risen out of the police officers shooting of a black youth in Ferguson MO, has provided America’s first black US Attorney General and even the first black President of the United States with not just a unique but also a historic opportunity to have made a difference, but the opportunity seems to have been squandered away.

Will The Gridlocked Continue?

With the recent democratic defeat in the US Senate, suffice it to say that we will be seeing better things coming out of what is now a republican controlled congress.  Whether or not this will end legislative gridlock that has besieged our nation over the past four years, only time will tell.

Come January, the first order of business for republican lawmakers will be to restore the legislative process of congress that has been trampled on by the current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, during her tenure as Speaker of the House.  Once complete, it’s on the greater task of restoring the people’s confidence in congress which means getting something done!

Republican lawmakers are already getting their ducks in a row and are likely to test the presidential waters, so to speak, by delivering a few key pieces of legislation to President Obama’s desk.  Approval of the Keystone XL pipeline or the repeal of the Medical Device tax are two likely candidates and will come as no surprise to the president as they have been highly publicized in the media.  A repeal of ObamaCare may also surface but would be nothing more than a symbolic gesture as republicans do not have the votes to override a presidential veto, at least not at the moment.

Once the waters have been tested, Senate Republicans will then have to roll up their shirt sleeves and dig into the mountain of bills that have been collecting dust on Harry Reid’s desk over the past several years, 342 bills as identified by Politifact.  In fairness however, many of those bills are currently in committee as well as some may have a companion bill already working its way through the legislative process.  None the less, the task of sorting through, prioritizing and bringing to the floor all these bills, whatever the number may be, will be a daunting task for Senate Republicans.  Some of these bills will be defeated but most will pass a Senate vote and will then head on over to the president for him to sign in to law or veto.
 
The larger percentage of bills sitting on Harry Reid’s desk are sponsored by republicans and there are a good number sponsored by democrats as well.  Virtually all of these bills passed a House vote with strong bipartisan support with roughly half receiving unanimous approval.  Of course, not all of the bills sitting on Reid’s desk are major pieces of legislation aimed to put Americans back to work and get the economy moving but this does not diminish the need to allow these bills to see a floor vote.  All these bills are important to someone or something or else they would not exist.

So why has Harry Reid been sitting on these bills, even those of lessor significance?  The answer is two-fold. 

First, by preventing a vote on a bill that does not fit the president’s progressive agenda, Reid protects the president from the political and media backlash that would arise if he were to veto any piece of legislation aimed at creating jobs and moving the economy forward.  Second, and sadly foremost, by voting on virtually nothing, this allows the perception of a “do nothing” congress to be maintained, which has been important for democrats who would otherwise be portrayed as the party in control of a Senate capable of passing only easy legislation of little substance.

Republicans taking control of the senate means that President Obama has lost the protection of Harry Reid.  Come January the president will sit poised, with pen in hand, ready for the onslaught of bills that he knows will be heading his way. 

Unable to run for re-election, his job approval rating at a record low and already having been labeled as a lame duck, President Obama has nothing personally to lose by vetoing every last one of the bills placed before him.  The president has a nearly 6 year record of placing his failed agenda ahead of the will and better good of the people he was elected to serve, so there is little to make anyone believe he will do otherwise.

President Obama’s mass vetoing of the bills that are to hit is desk will dispel the rumor of a “do nothing” congress and will drop its dysfunction right in the laps of democrats.  But all the blame should not be directed at Harry Reid as there have been 50 plus senate democrats who have stood idly by and even supported the dysfunction perpetuation by the Senate Majority Leader.

Senate democrats allowed one man to shut down our nation’s legislative process in order to protect the will of the leader of the executive branch.  This goes against the very principles of which our government was founded.  This is not a democrat or republican issue, this is not about being a conservative, a moderate, a liberal or a progressive, this is simply about what is right and wrong.  Senate democrats have failed this nation and we the people should be outraged.

But the question still remains, will the gridlock continue?  We will all see soon enough!

Latest Enrollment Forecast Does Not Bode Well For ObamaCare!

Just days before the Affordable Care Act, better known as ObamaCare, was signed into law, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its cost and enrollment forecasts which would become the boiler plate to which the success of ObamaCare would be measured.  In the report the CBO forecasted that the number of the nation’s nonelderly uninsured would be reduced by 8 million in 2014 and in 2015 by a total of 13 million.

Leading up to the inaugural ObamaCare open enrollment period, the CBO revised its enrollment forecast just slightly, reducing its 2014 prediction to 7 million. 

The 2014 open enrollment period for ObamaCare has come and gone.  Now, more than seven months since its close, it remains uncertain as to exactly how many of the uninsured nonelderly now possess healthcare insurance as a result of ObamaCare.  The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has been less than forthcoming in providing enrollment figures which is never a good sign.

A blog posted by HHS, this past August, has helped to answer the 2014 enrollment question.  In the blog, HHS states an enrollment number of 10.3 million, a figure which has been repeated throughout the media and by President Obama himself.  The origin of the 10.3 million figure can be sourced back to a recent Gallup poll and appears to be the 2014 ObamaCare enrollment figure that has been adopted by HHS.  It is important to note that Gallop qualifies their poll findings as representing the reduction in the number of uninsured as a result of both those who purchased healthcare insurance on the private marketplace in addition to those who have taken advantage of the Medicaid expansion.  This is a very important point.

Further on in the HHS blog it states that as of June, 7.2 million additional people enrolled in Medicaid.  This if course is a number sourced directly from HHS itself.

With 10.3 million fewer people that are no longer lacking in some form of healthcare coverage, 7.2 million of which are a result of the Medicaid expansion, when you do the math it leaves only 3.1 million formerly uninsured that could have possibly purchase a qualified healthcare plan on one of the state or federal ObamaCare exchanges.   That’s right only 3.1 million qualified healthcare plans could have been sold on the exchanges during the 2014 enrollment period according to the figures provided by HHS.

Having missed its 7 million enrollment forecast by nearly 60%, 2014 enrollment was a huge disappointment for the Obama Administration and has since had them reassessing their projection for the coming 2015 enrollment period which is due to start in just a couple of days. 

Expecting to achieve the 13 million signups, as forecasted by the CBO, is an unobtainable goal.  A more realistic yet still lofty target would be to repeat the number of uninsured who purchased a qualified healthcare plan in 2014, thus setting the 2015 projection at a mere 6.2 million.  Adopting a goal this low would however be an admission of failure, by the administration and they would never survive the republican thrashing that would ensue if they did so.

To keep up the enrollment charade, the Obama Administration has moved away from using enrollment figures provided by the CBO, not because the forecasts are so high but because they reflect the “uninsured nonelderly” and are labeled as such in their report.

Conveniently, HHS remains unwilling to release the exact number of the uninsured nonelderly that purchased healthcare insurance in 2014, a figure they most certainly possess.  Instead, they would rather state the more attractive figure of “total enrollment”, which includes all those who were formerly insured but have moved over to the healthcare exchanges for one reason or another, in addition to the new enrollments by the formerly uninsured.   

HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell announced on Monday that the administration has lowered its target and expects there to be 9.1 million new and returning customers in 2015.  Take away the 7.1 million HHS states to have retained healthcare insurance, from the 2014 enrollment period, and you have a net gain of a mere 2 million uninsured nonelderly expected to purchase a qualified healthcare plan on one of the state or federal healthcare exchanges during the coming enrollment period.  When you consider that only 3.1 million uninsured nonelderly obtain healthcare insurance during the initial 6 month enrollment period, a net gain of 2 million for 2015 does not look half bad.

The administration’s significant lowering of expectations for ObamaCare speaks volumes of the law’s shortcomings, specifically its inability to attract new customers.  The law was projected to move 25 million of the uninsured nonelderly to the rolls of the insured by 2016 a projection the law will fall grossly short of and is unlikely to ever achieve.

And the price tag for the troubled healthcare law continues to grow.  The cost of ObamaCare now exceeds $2 trillion dollars, over the next decade, and includes the broken promise, made by the president, that it would not increase the deficit by a single penny.  By any measure of ObamaCare, the end falls far too short of justifying the means.

Democrat Senate Loss Could Be Big Win for Obama

Believe it or not, the beating that Democrats took last week could turn out to be a big win for President Obama if he is wise enough to take advantage of the opportunity.

Had democrats stayed in control of the Senate, January 3^rd 2015 would be no different than today.  Congress would remain gridlocked with Harry Reid continuing to protect President Obama’s agenda by refusing to allow the massive stack of bills sitting on his desk to go to the floor for a vote.  Had democrats stayed in control of the Senate, the nation would be spending the next two years in economic stagnation and the divide between the parties would continue to grow and the president would continue to vilify republicans at every opportunity, just as he has done almost from the day he entered office.

But Harry Reid has been fired and republicans are sure to restore some semblance of order to congress when they take the helm. 

Once in full control of congress, Republican’s need to make one grand gesture to the president, a golden deal that is big but not so big that the president would lose face with a compromise, yet big enough that it makes a difference. 

If President Obama was smart, he would play ball with republicans and sign on to the compromise deal, a deal which could not have been offered to him had democrats remained in control of the senate.  The president could come out smelling like roses and if two or three of these deals were able to be brokered, he would actually end his term in office looking pretty darn good.  If President Obama were able to muster up two really good years, void of any major conflicts and with some useful legislation moved forward, his first six years of failures would be all but forgotten come 2016.

Or the president could remain confrontational, as he has for the past six years.  The difference however is that congressional democrats have grown tired of the president’s antics and are desperate to put some function back into congress and get some work done. 

The choice of which path to take is solely President Obama’s to makes and he is going to be judged severely if he chooses the wrong one.  Worse, democrats will pay another high price in 2016 if the president gets it wrong.

For Republicans, it’s a win either way.  If they can offer something reasonable, legislatively, to the president and he plays ball, then Republican will come out looking good from brokering the deal, especially if they can get a number of good pieces of legislation passed and signed by the president these final two years.

If on the other hand the president is unwilling to make any kind of concessions, all the dysfunction that has plagued congress since 2008 falls on him as well as the democratic defeat of the 2014 mid-term elections.  Republicans will be vindicated.

There Is No Obligation to Replace ObamaCare

One of the first actions republican lawmakers took after winning back the House in 2010 was to call for a full repeal of ObamaCare.  The vote was symbolic in nature as republicans knew that they did not have the votes in the Senate to push legislation forward much less think for a moment that the president would put a signature on a piece of legislation that would kill his prize possession.  However, they owed the vote to the people who showed their displeasure of the law and who were responsible for republicans regaining control of the House.

And the people spoke loud of their displeasure in the new law that was forced upon them through a Harry Reid orchestrated, midnight hour, Christmas Eve vote that fostered zero republican support.   The 2010 ouster of democrats from control of the House came by a net gain of 64 seats for Republicans, the single largest gain in the House since 1938.  The people were PISSED!  But the historic vote that shifted the power of the House back to republicans was more than just the people venting their frustrations with congress, it was them sending a mandate to republicans to repeal ObamaCare.

So it started, republican lawmakers and political pundits began the painstaking campaign of demonstrating the countless shortfalls of ObamaCare to a logic deaf liberal left whom of which were more interested in the possibility that the highly controversial federal healthcare insurance regulation might bring healthcare to a few million uninsured than they were that the facts clearly indicated that ObamaCare was going to cost jobs, stifle business growth and burden the entire middle class.

In a pseudo admission that the law was flawed, each time the subject of repeal was raised, democrats would respond by saying “Tell us what you will replace it with?”

Some republican lawmakers have taken the bait but in large, most stand on the premise that you do not need to replace ObamaCare to repeal it. Certainly repealing ObamaCare would not end the need for healthcare reform but there is no mandate for republicans to have something ready to replace ObamaCare if it were to be repealed.  Keep in mind, there was no reform measure or legislation in place before ObamaCare, a repeal of the law simply removes a failed attempt and prompts legislators to get back to work on a better and hopefully bi-partisan solution.

ObamaCare has inflicted far more damage to the economy and middle class than any good it has brought to the small number of individuals.  That is not meant to minimize the relief ObamaCare has brought to some but the intent of healthcare reform is not to damage a nation’s economy and punish the entire middle class for the better good of a few.  Tweaking the law here and there will not remove the fundamental flaw of ObamaCare being a One Size Fits All federal mandate that does not suite the particular needs of the 50 states and DC which make up our Republic.


Get Ready for the Repeal Rhetoric

Yes, we are going to hear it again, democrats repeating over and over how many times republicans have attempted to repeal ObamaCare.  I believe at last count, democrats had it at 50.  But as is often the case, the rhetoric coming from the democrats is false.

It is true, Republicans have call for a number of full repeal votes for ObamaCare but the count is in the single digits.  The first full repeal vote was called right after Republicans took control of the House in 2010 and as previously stated, it was purely symbolic.  There have been three full repeal votes which took place as part of the annual budget process, another symbolic full repeal vote just after the Supreme Court decision came down on the individual mandate and one other of which the symbolism behind the repeal vote escapes me at the moment.  No matter, this adds up to only six times that republicans have voted for a full repeal on ObamaCare, not the 50 plus times that democrats love to post all over mainstream and social media in an effort to demonize republicans and mislead their minions.

There have however been a number of other repeal votes relating to ObamaCare, eight of these repeal votes were targeted at small pieces of the law, carried bi-partisan support and were signed by the president.  The balance of the repeal attempts targeted pieces of the law that republicans have found to be unfair.  While there was likely agreement on many of these repeal efforts from the other side of the isle, each of these repeals would have damaged the overall health of the law and therefore did not receive the support of any democrats.


Remember How ObamaCare Was Passed

I believe it was Jefferson that said something on the lines of - no great legislation should be passed by a slight majority.

Closing the conference room doors on Republicans, the versions of the ObamaCare bills that were eventually brought to vote were crafted in a pure partisan manner.  Additionally the final senate bill was manipulated to secure just enough Senate Democrat votes to avoid filibuster, another go around to ensure that republican lawmakers had absolutely no input to the outcome of the law.  In a final act of dishonesty, Harry Reid called the vote on the Senate bill late on New Year’s Eve.

All that was left to do was to consolidate the House and Senate bills, take a final vote and send the legislation off to be signed by the president.  But an unexpected bump in the road emerged when democrats lost one member that made the 60^th vote they needed to pass the final bill.  They were, for lack of a better term, screwed as they knew they could not bring over one more vote without having to start over and gut even more out of the legislation, it looked like all might be lost.

Enter Nancy Pelosi with her go around plan.  Pelosi proposed that instead of consolidating the House and Senate bills, that instead the House adopt the Senate bill that had already been passed thus avoiding the need for another vote in the Senate.  The problem with this idea was that, as the United States Constitution clearly states, all revenue bills much originate in the House.  A contentious debate ensued yet despite the fact that the bill created 18 new taxes to pay for itself, the ObamaCare bill was deemed NOT to be a tax!  With the debate ended, the House adopted the Senate bill and in what is without question the most blatant abuse of executive power and unconstitutional act performed by the president, Obama signed the ACA bill into law.  But the story gets better, or worse actually.

Two years later the constitutionality of the Individual Mandate provision of the law was challenge, republicans arguing that the government does not have the constitutional authority to “fine” an individual for not purchasing a healthcare plan.  Without the Individual Mandate, the ObamaCare law would fail.

Now, after arguing in 2010 that the bill was NOT A TAX to pass constitutional muster, democratic lawmakers were now arguing that the Individual Mandate, a key provision of ObamaCare was in fact a tax.  Democrats won the Supreme Court battle again, the court ruling that the Individual Mandate was in fact a tax.

But wait, doesn’t this make the passage of the original bill fraudulent?  With the Supreme Court ruling that the Individual Mandate was in fact a tax, does this not require that the bill originate in the House instead of the Senate?  It most certainly does but democrats turned their nose on the constitution and cheered their own hypocrisy.

So no, there is no obligation for republicans to have a replacement for ObamaCare.  They were not invited to help craft it, they were prohibited from debating it and they provided not a single vote in favor of it.  Most important, republicans have been mandated by the people, not once but twice, to repeal the law.