4 Steps You Can Take to Stop Obamacare Now

12/13/12 • 12 min

Tenth Amendment Center: Constitutional Conversation

Obamacare can still be stopped.

And no, it’s not going to be stopped by Pelosi and Boehner – or Roberts and Scalia. It’s going to be stopped by people like you – pressing your state to resist. In fact, Obamacare’s ability to become reality in the long term is like a house of cards. The act is not viable economically and unstable politically. The only way it can gain a foothold at this point is through compliance in the states. Resistance will kill it.

In fact, there are 4 ways that you can resist Obamacare on a state level. Here’s a quick overview of each:

1. Reject the Exchanges. States were “given an option” – run the exchange, partner with the feds on running it, or leave it to DC to figure out. It doesn’t matter what “cards we were dealt” – as some governors are saying. Running an unconstitutional program for the feds is just plain wrong. And the first – and easiest – thing for states to do is to just say no.

Shifting the burden for health insurance exchanges to the feds effectively sabotages the implementation of Obamacare.

The federal government needs states to be complicit to pull this off. Otherwise, these decisions on who was creating exchange wouldn’t even have been included in the first place. The fact of the matter is that DC doesn’t have the resources or the manpower to run these exchanges in every state. Some analysts are saying that they only have the capacity to do so in 30 states, and any more than that will lead towards a collapse of the system.

Right now? Contact your governor and urge him or her to reject the creation of an exchange. Or, get your state representative to introduce a bill banning it. You can even use this bill in states where Governors have made the wrong choice. Make a state exchange illegal with a veto-proof majority and you’ve just made your DC-loving governor irrelevant. You can find model legislation online at tenthamendmentcenter.com/banexchanges

Also, share this short video on the issue from the Goldwater Institute:

2. Reject the Medicaid Expansion. During the Obamacare case before the Supreme Court, Rob Natelson and his colleagues at the Independence Institute argued that the law’s provisions forcing the states to expand Medicaid were unconstitutional. Neither the Constitution nor case law, they pointed out, permits the federal government to use federal spending programs to coerce the states. Seven of the nine justices agreed with them, essentially adopting the arguments advanced in their brief.

As a result, the states may consider freely whether or not to accept additional federal funds for the Medicaid expansion. Accepting federal funds might seem to bring the states short-term fiscal benefits. But the fiscal risks of doing so are very great—perhaps eventual bankruptcy. Financial and practical matters aside, helping the federal government run an unconstitutional program by participating in it on a state level is just plain wrong.

Get model legislation for your state HERE.

3. Pass a Health Freedom Act or Amendment. Already passed in more than a dozen states – three of which were in November, well-after the Supreme Court ruled on the Constitutionality of Obamacare, the Health Freedom Act is a powerful step towards the nullification of Obamacare. It is introduced as either standard legislation or as a proposal to your state’s constitution, often requiring a vote of the people.

It often includes language such as this: “An act banning the imposition of any penalty, tax, fee or fine on those who do not purchase health insurance.”

According to Michael Cannon of the CATO Institute, in order to operate an exchange, state employees would have to determine eligibility for ObamaCare’s “premium assistance tax credits.” Those tax credits trigger penalties against employers (under the employer mandate) and residents (under the individual mandate). In addition, state employees would have to determine whether employers’ health benefits are “affordable.” A negative determination results in fines against the employer. These are key functions of an exchange.

Thus, if the state establishes an exchange, then that law would violate state law by indirectly compelling employers and individual residents to participate in a health care system. That sort of law is precisely what the Health Care Freedom Act exists to prevent.

But it’s not just exchanges. This would prevents the adoption of any health care policies that are inconsistent with the Health Care Freedom Act. Under Obamacare, that will likely be many. Get more information at

Obamacare can still be stopped.

In fact, there are 4 ways that you can resist Obamacare on a state level. Here’s a quick overview of each:

Shifting the burden for health insurance exchanges to the feds effectively sabotages the implementation of Obamacare.

Also, share this short video on the issue from the Goldwater Institute:

Get model legislation for your state HERE.

It often includes language such as this: “An act banning the imposition of any penalty, tax, fee or fine on those who do not purchase health insurance.”

Previous Episode

Playing the Long Game

When talking with people about executing a state-based strategy to devolve power away from the federal government, I often run into immediate and vigorous protests.

“Our state legislators are spineless. They will never pass any of your legislation.”

“The state will never risk its federal funding. We can’t stand up to the feds.”

“The party establishments are too entrenched; we can’t get anything done at the state level.”

These, and many other barriers, do indeed stand in the way of effectively utilizing nullification at the state level. But most people take too short of a view and get discouraged. They focus on what cannot be done today and miss the bigger picture – what we can do today to set the stage for what we will do tomorrow.

We have a long war ahead of us, and we won’t win it through one decisive battle or a quickly executed short-game.

The tide in the Pacific during World War II turned in favor of the Allies after the Battle of Coral Sea and the Battle of Midway. But the United States still faced a determined Japanese military entrenched across a vast expanse of the Pacific. After its costly victory in the Battle of Midway, the American Pacific command didn’t try to win the war by immediately attacking Japan or its Pacific strongholds, but instead executed an island hopping strategy that bypassed the most heavily fortified Japanese positions. The leapfrogging strategy focused Allied resources on less strongly defended positions that could support a further drive toward the Japanese mainland. The strategy effectively cut off Japanese strongholds like Rabaul, leaving them to “wither on the vine.”

Operation Cartwheel kicked off in the summer of 1943, but the Allies weren’t in a position to actually invade Japan until the fall of Okinawa in June of 1945.

The U.S. and Allied forces used a long-range strategy executed over a two-year period to win the War in the Pacific.

It will take an equally long-range strategy to rein in an out of control federal government.

Americans tend to want instant results. But the U.S. didn’t reach this point in just a few presidential administrations. It took more than 75 years of usurpation to amass $16 trillion in debt, and strip virtually all power and authority away from the states and the people.

State nullification may well be our last hope. But we simply can’t expect every state to immediately stand up and begin pushing back against the federal government.

Some states do currently have a climate conducive to nullification efforts on certain issues. Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center indicate at least 10 states will seek to nullify the detention provisions written into the National Defense Authorization Act. Currently, at least 17 states will refuse to implement state-run health insurance exchanges under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and several states will push legislation to more aggressively block implementation of the national health care program. Eighteen states have legalized medical marijuana, and at least seven other states will consider bills to create medicinal cannabis programs in the upcoming legislative season.

But many state legislatures won’t consider any kind move that could potentially upset the apple cart. They can’t afford to. For example, my home state of Kentucky receives more than $1.50 in federal funding for every dollar collected in federal taxes. We are a welfare state, and Kentucky lawmakers know it.

So, should people in states like Kentucky simply give up and live with the fact that bureaucrats in D.C. will run their lives forevermore?

Of course not!

Like Allied forces in the Pacific during WWII, folks in these states will have to play a long-game, focusing on winning small victories, consolidating positions, then moving on to the next battle.

Start by networking various groups in the state and educating others in the principles of nullification, founding history and state sovereignty.

This can begin to change the general climate in the state and make it more favorable for future activism. Most Americans don’t know what nullification is, much less its rich history. This has to change before we can expect our lawmakers to actively push nullifying legislation.

Target specific unfriendly representatives and senators, and actively campaign to remove them from office.

You say your lawmakers simply won’t consider nullification or state sovereignty related legislation? Your governor kowtows to the feds?

Then replace them.

Support a governor who will stand up for the sovereignty of the state. Start a PAC and raise money for nullification friendly candidates. Again considering Kentucky as an example – a huge number of representatives won new terms without...

Next Episode

The Constitution: For Times Such as These

“In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” – Thomas Jefferson

The Constitution was written for times such as these.

The debate over gun control raging in the wake of the mass shooting at a Connecticut elementary school vividly illustrates the need for constitutional chains.

Emotions boiled over after the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary. Americans reacted in stunned disbelief, anger and a deep sense of sadness. Questions chased each other through the airwaves and across the Internet. How could anybody do such a thing – to children? And how can we stop it from ever happening again?

Most people recognize they will never understand what drives a person to gun down innocent kids in a school. We ask the first question rhetorically, more an expression of our incredulity rather than a query demanding acknowledgement.

But the second question, ah, that one demands an answer.

How do we stop it from ever happening again?

Human beings generally suffer from myopia, but politicians take delusions of grandeur to the highest level. They want you to believe that the right policy, properly implemented, will solve any problem and prevent any calamity. You just have to let them do their thing.

President Obama vowed to use the power of his office to prevent another tragedy like the massacre in Connecticut.

“We can’t accept events like this as routine,” he said. “Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage? That the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that the violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?”

And the president called for action.

“We can’t tolerate this anymore,” he added. “These tragedies must end, and to end them, we must change. We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and it is true. No single law, no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society. But that can’t be an excuse for inaction. Surely we can do better than this.”

As the emotions boil through our very souls, how can we argue with the president? We must DO something. Surely we can come up with a public policy solution that will prevent a deranged gunman from mowing down children. Our “collective grief” demands solutions, so we turn to the government.

Politicians stand ready, all too happy to act on our behalf.

Ban assault rifles.

Ban high capacity clips.

Ban all guns.

Just do something.

Let’s be honest; we can’t look at the photo of a 6-year-old child ruthlessly gunned down in the hallway of his school and not feel a sense of rage. We can’t look into the eyes of a grieving mother and hear her voice cracking as she tries to come to grips with the fact that her little girl will never come home again and not bend under the overwhelming pressure of sadness.

Pain.

Grief.

Our humanity demands such a response.

But raw emotion should never drive policy decisions.

Of course, politicians love emotion. Rahm Emanuel summed up the mentality of the modern policy-maker when he said, “Never let a crisis go to waste.”

The mindless mantra repeated by a grieving citizenry clamoring for lawmakers to “just do something,” empowers politicians to do just about anything, often with dreadful long-term consequences.

“Doing something” after planes flew into the World Trade Center ultimately gave us genital groping at the airport, Patriot Act spying, long, bloody wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, presidential kill lists, torture and indefinite detention.

In retrospect, perhaps a little pause for some post-9/11 thought and consideration before plunging forward and “doing something” would have been apropos.

But make no mistake – your government officials don’t want that kind of pause. They don’t want a rational debate. They don’t want careful consideration. They want power. And an emotionally distraught citizenry gives them an avenue to seize it.

Keep in mind, even after the current tragedy fades into the yellowing pages of a history book, the powers seized by the government in the wake of the calamity will remain tightly held. And you will never get back the accompanying loss of liberty.

That’s why we must apply the chains of the Constitution.

For times such as these.

The framers and ratifiers of the Constitution understood our “leaders” would always seek to extend their own power. So, they insisted on a Constitution limiting the authority of the federal government to specific, enumerated objects. Then they went a step further, demanding a Bill of Rights “in order to prevent misco...