Last Updated:November 28 @ 07:44 am

Limbaugh: House Repeal of Obamacare Is Way More Than Symbolic

By David Limbaugh

So what about the GOP House vote to repeal that legislative monstrosity that masquerades under the misleading title of "Affordable Care Act"? Was the vote more than symbolic?

Will the vote have any impact on the presidential and congressional races? What about the GOP proposals to replace Obamacare? A host presented those three questions, and I'd like to address them more thoroughly than the time permitted on television.

I don't believe that the GOP repeal vote was merely symbolic, even though everyone knows that the obstructionist Democratic Senate, which hasn't produced a budget for more than 1,100 days, will reject it out of hand. The House vote to repeal, which included 5 Democratic votes, helps to frame a critically important issue in the 2012 presidential and congressional campaigns, which is also true of the House's passage of "cut, cap and balance" and Rep. Paul Ryan's budget plan, "The Path to Prosperity."

Obamacare, along with Obama's stimulus package and his overall bankrupting federal spending, gave rise to the national conservative grass-roots uprising that bitter clingers fondly refer to as the tea party movement but whose followers radical leftist Democrats -- excuse the tautology -- refer to as tea baggers. If Obamacare led to the initial uprising, Obamacare 2 -- the Supreme Court majority's abominable affirmation of the law -- will galvanize the tea party as much as any other issue and energize all conservatives to defeat Obama and congressional Democrats in November. It formally showcases and places in stark relief the Democrats' position on the law; it forces them, on the record, either to join the overwhelming majority of Americans who want it repealed or to thwart their will. That is big, if Mitt Romney and other Republicans capitalize on it.

What impact will this vote and the Senate Democrats' inevitable refusal to repeal have on the presidential and congressional races?

This action and inaction, taken together with Obama's and his party's obstruction of entitlement reform and overall spending reductions, will further expose them as the sole party leading us over the cliff to national financial bankruptcy. Though it is a dagger in the heart of America's financial stability, it is a political gift to Romney, if he'll properly articulate the message. He must call Obama (and his Democratic Party co-conspirators) out as the Great Destroyer. He must shine a spotlight on the mountain of lies upon which Obamacare was based.

Obamacare was based on the fraudulent premise that we have almost 50 million Americans without health insurance and that this is tantamount to a lack of access to health care. The facts should help dispel this pernicious propaganda.

In fact, millions included in that number are illegals; millions are young people in good health who can afford but choose not to purchase health care (the "young invincibles") -- as many as 18 million; millions are eligible for government assistance and don't avail themselves of it; and millions are only uninsured for short periods of time. Health care expert Sally Pipes has estimated that the number of people who fall through the cracks -- those who are working, are ineligible for aid and who don't earn enough to afford health insurance (the "chronically uninsured working poor") is closer to 8 million. So Obama succeeded in commandeering one-seventh of the nation's economy instead of providing an affordable safety net for these people and preserving, rather than destroying, the greatest health care system in world history -- despite its flaws.

Thus, Obamacare is not about access to health care, nor is it about costs, which cannot be contained under this socialistic scheme without extreme rationing. It is not about quality of care, which will necessarily be reduced from rationing, from the further elimination of market forces, from the exodus of doctors from the profession, and from other factors. It is about expanding government control.

Obama's other lies about Obamacare are that people will be able to keep their own plans, the cost curve will bend downward, the doctor-patient relationship will not be damaged, there will not be federal funding of abortions, there will not be rationing and access to and quality of care will not be reduced, when it will actually be severely reduced. If Republicans clearly communicate that those are lies, they will greatly enhance their election prospects.

Yes, Republicans should present a plan to reform health care, but only after Obamacare is firmly repealed, because they can't afford to allow disagreements over reform to interfere with repeal of a law that is infinitely worse than the status quo ante. Their replacement should center on market reforms -- eliminating the discriminatory tax treatment between employer-based and individual plans; expanding health savings accounts; reducing federal regulations, taxes and costly government mandates; tort reform; and permitting buying insurance across state lines.

As Dr. David Gratzer said concerning health care reform, "capitalism is not the problem; it is the cure." The GOP must bring that message home in this campaign.


David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book, "The Great Destroyer," is now available and has been on the New York Times best-seller list for five weeks, reaching as high as No. 2. Follow him on Twitter @davidlimbaugh and his website at


VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
Rate this post:
Rating: 9.5/10 (31 votes cast)
Limbaugh: House Repeal of Obamacare Is Way More Than Symbolic, 9.5 out of 10 based on 31 ratings

Don't leave yet! Add a comment below or check out these other great stories:


  1. malemattersComment by malematters
    July 13, 2012 @ 10:14 am

    Good commentary. I certainly agree with this: “It is about expanding government control.”

    Apart from that, even the strongest supporters of Obamacare might want to at least temporarily side-line the new health law, once they become aware of the disaster looming on the horizon. Consider:

    Most of us drive our vehicles very carefully, even though we have insurance to cover accidents.

    But suppose you had no insurance. (I periodically risked going without it when I was a young adult with a low income.) Think how much more carefully you’d drive! And how much more slowly. Yes, you would. And you’d likely drive less. (And maybe walk more and become healthier for it.)

    For many people, I suspect, the more auto insurance they have, the more they tend to drive and to drive faster and less guardedly. (For proof of that, keep imagining how you’d drive without insurance.) That means more accidents in which people are killed and injured. Although insurance is a wonderful thing — preventing bankruptcies and bestowing peace of mind, for example — it might have the unintended consequence of causing more accidents and hence more deaths and injuries than if no one had insurance.

    Now consider:

    In a report on how to fight pandemics, the March 2012 Discover magazine says the secret to fighting them is “knowing their real cause: disease factories built by people. Ironically, hospitals turn out to be highly efficient disease factories. They allow the proliferation and spread of dangerous germs among patients, and the evolution of those germs to extreme levels of virulence.”

    In that same vein, the Journal of the American Medical Association warned us 12 years ago:

    “America’s healthcare system is the third leading cause of death in the U.S., causing between 230,000 and 284,000 fatalities per year, behind only heart disease and cancer.”

    The report didn’t say the third leading cause of death is poor health. It said the healthcare system itself. In other words, our country’s third leading cause of death is the legions of good-intentioned doctors, nurses, and others whose ultimate duty is to help us avoid death.

    JAMA provides a breakdown of the deaths caused by healthcare:

    - 12,000 deaths per year due to unnecessary surgery
    - 7,000 deaths per year due to medication errors in hospitals
    - 20,000 deaths per year due to other errors in hospitals
    - 80,000 deaths per year due to infections in hospitals
    - 106,000 deaths per year due to negative effects of drugs

    Then add the nearly 200,000 patients that may be killed each year by blood clots following surgery or illness, the leading cause of preventable hospital deaths in the U.S., according to David Goldhill, author of “How American Healthcare Killed My Father,” citing a report in The Wall Street Journal. (Watch Goldhill’s video at

    It makes one want to ask an absurd question: “Why don’t we drop our health insurance and stay away from doctors?”

    If no one had health insurance, lots of things could happen, good and bad. Here’s a quirky thing I believe is possible:

    In 2008, shortly after the economic collapse, I was watching a CNN reporter interview a woman on the street. She had just lost her job. The reporter asked how she was coping.

    “Along with my job, I lost my health insurance,” she said [I paraphrase]. “Now I have to really be careful to watch what I eat, lose weight, exercise, and take better care of myself.” I got the impression that while she had health insurance, she tended to be a bit reckless with her health, figuring she was covered if she got sick.

    Some people, maybe many, are like that, due to what is called the “moral hazard.” (See, which says, “Insurance is also the source of what economists call ‘moral hazard,’ where those who are protected against the consequences of their actions take greater risks than they otherwise would.” See also “The Oregon Health Insuance Experiment” at “Although health insurance is expected to improve health through increases in the quantity and quality of health care, it is also possible that by reducing the adverse financial consequences of poor health, health insurance may discourage investments in health and thereby worsen health outcomes.” How many people are affected by the moral hazard can depend on the type; i.e., insurance vs. a government bailout. See a New York Times article at

    Without health insurance, CNN’s interviewed woman became like the driver without car insurance.

    Enter President Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA), whose aim now is to get almost everyone insured and require millions to buy health insurance.

    A lot of young adults currently elect to have no health insurance (as I did years ago) because of its cost, or because they want to save as much money as possible while they’re young and healthy. Once forced to buy insurance under ACA (or pay a penalty tax), many can be counted on to frequently see a doctor for minor things simply “to get my money’s worth.”

    How many more people, BECAUSE they have insurance, will pay less attention to diet and exercise like CNN’s woman on the street, and develop medical problems (such as diabetes) that require visits to the doctor that they would not have had to make while uninsured and cautious?

    ACA will bring an estimated 32 million more people, mostly young adults, into the healthcare system, and countless others into it more often. It’s obviously supposed to do that, because Mr. Obama wants to spread the health around.

    He also wants to spread Medicaid around to include millions of uninsured. Yet according to large study by the University of Virginia, surgical patients on Medicaid are 13% more likely to die than those with no insurance at all, and 97% more likely to die than those with private insurance.

    Let’s not forget, too, that every day for the next 18 years, 10,000 Baby Boomers will reach age 65 and become eligible for Medicare; many of them will seek healthcare services before losing their employer insurance, and many others who’d had no insurance (until Obamacare) and had put off healthcare will put it off no longer.

    Moreover, we have a obesity epidemic that is growing, especially among the young for whom obesity has jumped from 9% of the adolescent population in 2000 to 23% in 2008, and threatening to overwhelm our health care system. The main threat is the costly diabetes that is often obesity’s side effect.

    Finally, “one flaw in the Affordable Care Act,” says Business Week (, “is that by prohibiting insurers from taking health risks into account in setting rates, it gives people no incentive to lower their premiums by losing weight or quitting smoking….”

    The upshot is that millions more will interact with the healthcare providers who are, according to JAMA, our nation’s third leading cause of death.

    These providers, unless there is a huge increase in their already insufficient number, (but go here: will be stressed by the increased demand for services. Their error rate is likely to rise.

    Could our healthcare system then become the second leading cause of death? Or even, in the greatest of ironies, the first?

    Do we really know what we’re doing? A tsunami is coming.

    (I recently posted this online with supporting links at Relevant Matters –

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 1.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  2. JDZComment by JDZ
    July 13, 2012 @ 11:07 am

    The whole stack of rationale for why Obamacare must be passed and implemented is based on questionable data. Remember our favorite hypocritical movie mogul named Michael Moore who has leveraged our capitalistic economy to make millions. He was one of those pushing the premise that our healthcare system was ranked 37th in the world and much worse then even the system in Cuba, and many Americans actually believed what he was saying. However, when you get into his basis, it was all convoluted and based on the cost per patient, etc. and had nothing to do with the quality of our healthcare procedures, technology, and overall patient healthcare. We have the best healthcare system in the world..and that is why it is as expensive as it is. You get what you pay for in this world.

    The affluent in this world come to this country for complex healthcare problems to be treated, they do not go anywhere else. They know where the real advanced technology and expertise resides and it is in this country.

    Obamacare is the final nail in the coffin which will give the government control of our lives. It is as simple as that. It is the socialist/communist dream of their lifetimes which it to take this country down and convert it into a socialist country dominated by a huge government who dictates everything meaningful in our lives. They will have control.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.9/5 (11 votes cast)
  3. middlegroundComment by middleground
    July 13, 2012 @ 4:21 pm

    By cherry-picking the parameters you feed into a discussion you can prove anything. For example, one healthcare statistic is infant mortality. In the US every live birth is counted and this is compared to countries where infants aren’t counted until they are a year old. Guess what, we appear to have a high infant mortality rate. A child born 3 months premature has a very good chance of dying because not all the organs are fully mature. A child born to an addicted mother is also more likely to die.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
  4. lanimom229Comment by lanimom229
    July 13, 2012 @ 6:35 pm

    Unfortunately, as always, you/we are preaching to the choir. I personally am appalled at some of the people I know, people that I thought were bright and well educated, will not even read anything negative about BHO. They honestly believe what he is doing is the right direction for him to take America and they are riding on his bandwagon. They believe that anything I/we/you say is a lie. This happens even if I give a site to go to to prove what I am saying.This absolutely amazes me! Then again why should I be amazed? Look who is president!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)

Leave a Comment

Network-wide options by YD - Freelance Wordpress Developer