November 26 2012

ObamaCare: Is It Time to Go Gandhi?

Charlotte Hays

Carrie Lukas’ post on how ObamaCare could make going to the doctor more like going to the DMV is scary.

So with Carrie’s piece fresh in my mind, I was particularly interested in Wesley J. Smith's post entitled “On Not Cooperating with ObamaCare” at The Corner.

Smith’s point of departure is a story in The Hill about sixteen states, most with Republican governors, that are opting out of setting up state exchanges for insurance, a key element of ObamaCare. This kind of passive resistance is, according to Smith, perfectly legal.

The Hill explains:

It's a situation no one anticipated when the Affordable Care Act was written. The law assumed states would create and operate their own exchanges, and set aside billions in grants for that purpose.  

Smith writes:

Some liberals say that approach isn’t conservative because, in effect, it allows the feds to run state health care. (As if they care!)  I’m not buying. In case anyone hasn’t noticed, HHS already does run health care nationally about issues important to the Obama political coalition — as in free-birth-control rule, with more of the same no doubt coming soon. Indeed, Obamacare was designed to allow the technocracy to create entitlements nationally on the dimes of the private sector, while guaranteeing the employment of ever more technocrats.

After an appalling and incoherent Supreme Court ruling and the recent election, it does seem now that utter legal non cooperation is the only way remaining to impede the Leviathan.  Here’s another suggestion: Senate Republicans should filibuster confirmation of the soon-to-be-nominated members of the Independent Payment Advisory Board. No board, no IPAB autocracy. Of course, the president might then make a non-recess recess appointment, but that opens any action taken by IPAB to legal attack.

So, stalwart ObamaCare opponents, time for some good old fashioned passive resistance. Go limp. For those on the political left who object to such blatant obstructionism, I have two words for you: sanctuary cities. 

It is somehow poetic justice that what makes this kind of passive resistance a possibility is that the law was rammed through Congress, largely unread, even by its most ardent supporters, who knew that they had a brief moment in which to enact massive reform.

The very unworkability of the system may do what the Supreme Court did not do—but it will be far more painful this way.

Comments
blog comments powered by Disqus