Republican Political Courage in Partial Obamacare Repeal

According to a Pete Kasperowicz The Hill article on Wednesday, the House voted 235-191 (roll call vote) to pass HR1214 (full text), a small Obamacare repeal of $100M in grant money for construction of School-Based Health Centers (SBHC).  While the dominant mood of the Republicans voting for HR 1214 was to turn around the out-of-control spending binge by the Democrats, liberal-leaning The Hill failed to present the controversial nature of SBHCs as ensurers of teenage access to contraceptives and abortion services providers (read more about SBHC's at Human Life International).  HR1214 is a simple, three-paragraph, easy to understand repeal of irresponsible SBHC spending backed by all but four Republicans and supported by three Democrats.

A Disappointing Vote:  Rep. West
Today, in a Russell Berman The Hill article, Mr. Berman pointed out the irony in the Allen West (R-FL22) vote.  Rep. West, a tea party favorite, had voted along with all the other Republicans in favor of a different partial Obamacare bill the day prior (HR1213) but cited the importance of focus on international issues including Libya as a reason for his "no" vote.  The Hill went further and pointed out that two SBHC applicants were within Rep. West's district, implying and perhaps rightly so, West's vote was influenced by the two applicants.  While I respect Rep. West's natural leadership and his voting record to date, this particular one I cannot accept.

True Political Courage:  Rep. Dold
While The Hill wasted no time in bagging a tea party member, they failed to present a true hero in the HR1214 vote:  Rep. Robert Dold (R-IL10).  Rep. Dold, a fiscal-conservative social-moderate freshman congressman who replaced Mark Kirk (Sen. Kirk won the Senate seat previously held by Obama), sits in "the most Democratic district of any Republican in the country" (National Journal) with redistricting controlled by Democrats.  Add to that, according to a Democrat-complied list of all applicants for the SBHC grant a whopping 13 applicants were within Dold's district--nearly double the number of applicants in any other congressional district!  To vote to deny the pork within one's own district takes a huge amount a political courage and Dold earned my admiration.  Too bad Mr. Berman at The Hill could only make a case against an aberrant Republican Congressman and not balance it with the Congressman who demonstrated true political courage.

Utah's Take
Utah's three Congressmen all voted party-line.  By his vote, liberal Matheson demonstrated his continued support for outrageous spending and Planned Parenthood referrals.  It was, however, nice to see on the SBHC grant list that Utah was devoid of applicants for the pork-barrel federal spending.

Finally! An Awesome Bill Passes the House...and Utah's Matheson Opposes

Today the House voted to repeal Obamacare 245-189 -- a larger margin than the passage of the behemoth a year ago -- with three southern Democrats joining all the Republicans in passing (also reflecting more bipartisanship than the original bill vote).

Contrasting to the 2,000 page quagmire, H.R. 2 was a simple 3 page bill. It fulfilled campaign promises made by the GOP and points to the seriousness the House--led by a promising new Speaker, John Boehner--is taking in their Pledge to America made prior to the November elections. It's a welcome fresh change to the unconstitutional tyranny of the old Pelosi-led Congress.

Yet with the perfect opportunity for Utah's Rep. Jim Matheson to put teeth into his dying so-called "blue dog" moderate coalition and kill the bill he proudly claims he didn't vote for (for further analysis read my post "The Untold Story of Matheson's Vote for Obamacare"), Matheson voted today against repeal.

In this past fall's Bruce Lindsey's Sunday Edition KSL televised debate with challenger Morgan Philpot, Matheson claimed their were "good parts" about Obamacare that should be preserved such as the prohibitions against denial for preexisting conditions:

I think we ought to keep the good parts and get rid of the bad parts....if you had a pre-existing condition before this became law, insurance companies could deny you coverage, to have health insurance coverage....If you repeal the whole law you're saying, "You know what, if you have a pre-existing condition, too bad."

While on its face pre-existing conditions sounds very simple and utopic for the insurance companies to cover, the mandate on insurance companies is a horrible portion of Obamacare, not at all good like Matheson asserts. Indeed the mandate is a severe overreach of the Federal government and destroys the very concept of insurance.

Insurance is designed for a group of citizens to pool collective risk of negative future events. Life insurance pools risk against future death, car insurance against future accidents, and earthquake insurance against the event that an earthquake would destroy a home. Furthermore, the pools are specialized allowing different rate payments based on higher risks. A septuagenarian pays higher life insurance premiums than a mid-lifer because risk is greater, while a driver with a clean driving record reaps better premiums than the driver with three moving violations.

By the Federal government reaching in and mandating insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions, in a single swath they have destroyed both the specialized pools of low risk health insureds vs. high risk and the risk of insuring future negative events since anyone can obtain insurance at any time. Thus, health insurance is destroyed. Coupled with the Individual Mandate portion of the bill, the pre-existing conditions portions Obamacare causes us to now share collective healthcare costs in a Socialisitic system with disregard to lifestyle choices.

Why would Matheson and the liberal Democrats want to destroy Health Insurance through this pre-existing conditions clause? Health insurance premiums have continued to skyrocket post-Obamacare passage as companies seek to brace against the wave of uninsureds with pre-existing conditions who will be added to their rolls at the whim of the uninsured. Eventually the healthy will seek escape from so-called "health insurance" because it will be many times cheaper for them to self-insure rather than be pooled with people with actual, rather than risk of future, catastrophic medical costs.

By exacerbating health insurance woes by adding a requirement for pre-existing conditions, Matheson masks his Socialistic tendencies as help for the needy. Matheson clearly has to be voted out of office in 2o12. And a new Utah Policy poll this week shows just this: a hypothetical matchup of Gov. Herbert vs. Matheson has Herbert winning 50%-40% (h/t Political Cornflakes).

The Untold Story of Matheson's Vote for Obamacare

The most important race in Utah two months from now in November won't be Governor Herbert's triumph over Carroon. Instead, it will be the story of how a common man named Morgan Philpot took down a powerful political dynastic incumbent named Jim Matheson.

I'd like to introduce Jim Matheson to you. He is a politician who shrouds his votes carefully, masking his true liberal spend-and-tax philosophies. No better example of this comes to mind than Matheson's vote this spring for Obamacare.

Oh, you counter, Matheson did not vote for Obamacare (HR 3590)! Ahh, I rebut, but in the real vote for Obamacare he did vote to unconstitutionally ram it through! Please, allow me to elaborate and take us back to March of this year.

Back in the third week of March the Senate had already passed Obamacare and Speaker Nancy Pelosi was frantically twisting arms to get votes to get Obamacare passed in the House. Out of desperation, scheming, or both, Louise Slaughter (D-NY28 "gerrymandered earmuffs" and Chair of the House Rules Committee; Jill Rowland is in a good fight to unseat her) came up with an idea which would become to be ignominiously known as the "Slaughter Solution": deem Obamacare to have passed without actually voting on it. The Slaughter Solution provided Pelosi twofold objectives: first, a backup plan to pass Obamacare in case Democrats couldn't force enough of their members to vote for it on a direct vote and second, to provide Pelosi a true test vote on Obamacare to see what kind of margin they could get on Obamacare. Many Democrats were "fence sitters" knowing Obamacare was massively unpopular at home but desired to both partisanly please their leader as well as further the expansion of big government and power. Such was the case with supposed fence sitter Democrat Jim Matheson.

On Thursday, March 18th, the infamous "Slaughter Solution" (H RES 1190) passed the house 222-203 providing Pelosi a good indication about how fence sitters were sitting. Joining all the Republicans in opposing the "Slaughter Solution" were 28 so-called "Blue Dog" Democrats who are considered more moderate than the Nancy Pelosi and Louise Slaughters of the political world. Publicly that week even beyond Thursday, Matheson kept saying how he was undecided about Obamacare while protesters were held daily outside his office. Yet Matheson revealed his desire for government healthcare takeover by voting "aye" on the Obamacare "Slaughter Solution" which is nothing worse than passing unconstitutional Obamacare unconstitutionally (ie Congress has to actually vote on law, they can't deem it to have passed.)

Pelosi kept working the Democrats and prepping them for a Sunday--yes a rare Christian Sabbath Day vote--on Obamacare to be held when Christians across the nation would in their homes and churches praying for deliverance from Sin and Obamacare. The morning of Saturday the 20th broke and I joined a few hundred protestors on the steps of our state capitol for a Code Red Rally. Even after the rally ended Saturday mid-dayish, protestors went over to "undecided" Matheson's empty office to protest. It was after this--less than 24 hours before the vote--that Matheson announced he would be voting no on HR3590 and Pelosi got Bart Stupak to cave in on the anti-abortion measures freeing up some of the Democratic fence sitters like Matheson to vote against the leadership knowing that the vote for HR3590 "Obamacare" would be scrutinized historically far more than H RES 1190 "Slaughter Solution."

Utah needs a better Congressman than Matheson. I have better things to do with my Saturdays than to protest a supposed "fence-sitter" who has already voted for Obamacare in the worse form of the Slaughter Solution.

But let's just say I'm a nutjo who has no idea what I'm talking about. You say Matheson's vote against Obamacare HR3590 proves he is against it. I say the vote was a run for cover and can prove it with one final blow: if Matheson is SO against Obamacare that he didn't vote for it, then why doesn't Matheson sign the pledge to repeal it? Republican Morgan Philpot signed the pledge a long time ago.

The answer to that question reveals the true nature of liberal Democrat Matheson and why we must make every effort to ensure Morgan Philpot defeats him this November.