• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • How the States Can Carry the Torch to Repeal Obamacare

    Last night, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2, which would scrap Obamacare in its entirety. Regardless of whether this legislation makes it to the President’s desk, supporters of a new direction for health care reform have reason to be encouraged: Implementation of Obamacare faces an uphill battle in the states as well.

    So far, 27 states have filed suit against the new law’s individual mandate and requirements forbidding states from reducing eligibility for their Medicaid programs. But the legal battle isn’t the only way states can throw a wrench in the health care overhaul. This week, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) debuts “The State Legislators Guide to Repealing Obamacare” highlighting ways in which states can continue the battle.

    States face some of the most detrimental effects of the new health law. Obamacare significantly expands eligibility for Medicaid, and though the federal government will foot the bill in the first years of its enactment, in the end states still will be left picking up a portion of the cost.

    This, however, doesn’t include administrative costs of expanding the program; nor does it consider the “woodwork effect.” According to ALEC, one out of every four uninsured Americans currently qualifies for Medicaid but is not enrolled. As these eligible individuals participate as a result of the new law’s requirement to carry coverage or pay a penalty, state costs will grow, but the federal government will not provide the enhanced matching rate.

    States will also experience other negative economic effects of Obamacare. New penalties will threaten job creation, and states where life sciences industries employ a significant portion of the workforce may see jobs go overseas as a result of new taxes on drug and medical device manufacturers. Finally, Obamacare marks a federal overreach into insurance regulation, which has hitherto been overseen by the states.

    ALEC provides strategies for state legislators to stop Obamacare, beginning with refusing to create the foundation required for the new law to take shape. ALEC’s Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act, which has been introduced or announced in 42 states, “prohibits any person, employer, or healthcare provider from being compelled to purchase or provide health insurance; protects the right of a person or employer to pay directly for lawful healthcare services; protects the right of a health care provider to accept direct payment for lawful healthcare services, and protects the existence of a private health insurance market.” States can also apply for waivers for certain insurance provisions, reject federal grants for implementation, and let Washington enforce federally created “consumer protections.”

    Finally, state legislators should engage in careful oversight of the new law, commissioning outside reports on the effects of Obamacare at the state level. State lawmakers should hold hearings to highlight the unintended consequences of the new law, such as incentives for states to drop their Medicaid programs or businesses to drop employer-sponsored coverage. Drawing public attention to the negative effects of Obamacare will build the case for repeal.

    Under Obamacare, states will be charged with enacting several provisions of the law without the flexibility to tailor changes to the unique demands of their residents. States can use this opportunity to fight for repeal and to empower state legislators to pursue the health care reform that best suits their needs.

    Posted in Obamacare [slideshow_deploy]

    16 Responses to How the States Can Carry the Torch to Repeal Obamacare

    1. Gabriel says:


      provide specific examples about how HR 3200 actually takes away a single freedom or right from you? Actual sections. List the sections and provide references with evidence.

    2. West Texan says:

      Looks as though Pelosi, Reid and Obama failed to do their homework regarding states' sovereignty and America's free market principles. Sad, very sad.

    3. dannyroberts Phoenix says:

      i hope some one comes along soon thats not afraid to speak out against

      this president, really put him on the spot with hard ball questions and have the back bone to interrupt him when he starts to lecture and babble on about nothing, and demand an answer as to how he really feels about an issue in question. Have not seen that yet, are we going to let this guy sit on the fence forever?

    4. Jill, California says:

      Let's not forget the vast numbers of people who will be forced into Medicaid because our private insurers (e.g., Blue Shield) have hit us with such skyrocketing premium increases that we can no longer afford insurance. Premiums were high before. But since Obamacare was implemented, they've been off the charts.

    5. Bobbie says:

      Provide specific examples it doesn't, Gabriel.

      It is specifically UNCONSTITUTIONAL. What more does ignorance need?

    6. Mike, Wichita Falls says:

      As there is no enumerated power in the Constitution for Congress to legislate or the executive to regulate healthcare, its providers or its insurance, HR 3200 violates our 10th amendment rights. It is as much a violation of our civil rights as are faith-based initiatives, campaign finance reform laws, gun control laws, unreasonable searches and seizures, confiscation of property, slavery, etc. without due process.

    7. Bobbie says:

      Oh, and Gabriel, why are you so scared to take on your personal responsibilities? Why does the left hate to debate? Why is the productivity of truth so intimidating to you and the left? Why is government your sole reliance on making your life what it is?

    8. Gabriel says:


      Which specific sections of HR 3200 are unconstitutional? I read HR 3200 and the previous HR 3590. I spent around 2 weeks going through the bill, espically since it was actually available to the public for 73 days, regardless of what conservative media told everyone. I read the bill, did you? I would take a few sections out including the mandate, but the overall bill is just fine. Which part of the Healthcare reform bill is unconstitutional? You do realize that everytime you dodge the question on specifics it shows you have no clue what you are talking about, aside from conservative media telling you it's a bad bill. waiting….

    9. TheCivilRoar.com says:


      I believe the resource you're looking for – which refers to specific sections within the new health care law, showing in detail how each provision unconstitutionally takes away freedom – can be found here:

      Your thoughts?

    10. Gabriel says:

      Sure, my thoughts are do you have anything aside from extremely partisan and one-sided Heritage opinion makers? Nothing listed under that link has the slighest spec of evidence actually supporting any single argument Heritage has tried to make. Heritage "research" and "opinion" does not count for facts. I take most if not all of there "research" with a large grain of salt. Which sections in HR 3200 are unconstitutionally taking away freedom? You guys cant just use the same old talking points. I want direct evidence, otherwise your argument on repealing the entire bill holds no credibility. wating…

    11. Bobbie says:

      read the constitution then read the bill, Gabriel. Doesn't matter what "good" is in it, it is unconstitutional. Quit wasting your time.

    12. TheCivilRoar.com says:

      In upholding Virginia’s challenge to the constitutionality of the mandate on December 13, 2010, U.S. District Court Judge Henry Hudson wrote:

      A thorough survey of pertinent Constitutional case law has yielded no reported decisions from any appellate courts extending the Commerce Clause or the General Welfare Clause to encompass regulation of a person’s decision not to purchase a product, notwithstanding its effect on interstate commerce or role in a global regulatory scheme. The unchecked expansion of Congressional power to the limits suggested by the Minimum Essential Coverage provision would invite unbridled exercise of federal police power. At its core, this dispute is not simply about regulating the business of insurance—or crafting a scheme of universal health insurance coverage. It’s about an individual’s right to choose to participate.[10]

      Regardless of the wisdom of the policy, if a state wants to experiment with a health insurance mandate, it has the constitutional right to do so. But Congress, in this instance, is invading the traditional authority of the states in regulating health insurance within their own borders. As George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley has written, “There is a legitimate concern for many that this mandate constitutes the greatest (and perhaps the most lethal) challenge to states’ rights in U.S. history. With this legislation, Congress has effectively defined an uninsured 18-year-old-man in Richmond as an interstate problem like a polluting factory. It is an assertion of federal power that is inherently at odds with the original vision of the Framers.”

      from http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/01/


      When you've concluded a thorough survey of all Constitutional case law, we look forward to hearing whether or not your conclusions are similar to Judge Hudson's and Dr. Moffitt's. As it stands, you have not offered any in-depth source(s) that back up your views on this issue.

    13. Gabriel says:


      The problem is that you didn't read the bill. You follow whatever Heritage tells you. For the 10th time, which specific section of HR 3200 is unconstitutional?

    14. Gabriel says:

      Mass. did it under Romney(was that unconstitutional?) and Virginia is one state, not to mention the Conservative Judge that passed the ruling. Try again. I have one simple question for you, do you wish to repeal the entire bill or just take out the mandate? And your "in depth source" is one conservative judges ruling….. please, get off that high horse. Repeal the entire bill? Lets see what you will say now……

    15. Gabriel says:

      Besides, the mere fact that you pulled up a Heritage source throws most, in not all credibility out the window. again…… please.

    16. TheCivilRoar.com says:


      You still have yet to provide any links that cite sources and present a compelling case for why requiring citizens to buy insurance is Constitutional.

      As it stands, The Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” That's pretty clear. There's no Constitutional clause or amendment providing federal government the power to force citizens to buy health insurance, or any other good or service. And yet here in this new law they attempt to exercise such power, as a federal mandate.

      To quote the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office at http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=4816&type=0 : “The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”

      Looking forward to those sources of yours.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.