'Call it the stupidity of America' – Gruber Video on ObamaCare

Editor’s Note – Most transparent administration ever…? ‘Fraud in the inducement‘ – Obama Care! The chief architect of this disaster now reveals that they relied on America to be “stupid’ and admitted it. We have reported and written about this crime on America so often, it is hard to choose which words to introduce this new revelation without writing a book.

MUST SEE VIDEO BELOW

Many in America knew that Obama Care was bad for us all, and we knew that there were too many pages to digest it, and we knew it was being shoved down our throats by a heavily Democrat Party controlled Senate, House, and White House, and we knew it was fraud and unconstitutional. So did the chief architect.

Chief architect of Obama Care, Jonathan Gruber knew America was 'stupid' and knew they could hide things from you through lack of transparency. Watch the video below.
Chief architect of Obama Care, Jonathan Gruber knew America was ‘stupid’ and knew they could hide things from you through lack of transparency. Watch the video below.

They purposefully twisted and manipulated things so that the CBO could not score the mandates as taxes, yet the SCOTUS tells us the penalties were taxes. This MIT economist, Jonathan Gruber, knew America was “stupid,” wasn’t paying close attention and you were punked, and it is your fault America for allowing this abomination called Obama Care to be foisted upon us all.

“Call it the stupidity of America…” – Gruber

Does the truth even matter anymore? Credibility in the White House and the DNC has just been reduced to an all time low. America, you voted for Obama twice.

The old saying, ‘once bitten, twice shy’ really did not matter. Anyone who voted for this situation should be absolutely embarrassed about how duped they were.

We’d like to say this is likely the biggest ‘told you so’ moment ever, but we cannot revel in being correct because the damage that has been done may never be fully recovered and we would be called racists.

We certainly hope that SCOTUS makes the correct ruling in the newest case before them on ‘subsidies’ to gut this farce perpetrated on America. We are pleased with the results of the midterms because it appears America woke up and is not as ‘stupid’ as Gruber and the left think we all are.

Explain this again Ms Pelosi – “We have to pass it to see what’s in it…” But it was not a tax – remember that winner?

Obamacare Architect: “Lack of Transparency” Helped Law Pass

From Judicial Watch

The esteemed college professor who served as one of Obamacare’s key architects has admitted that a “lack of transparency” helped the administration pass the disastrous healthcare law, which is facing a number of legal challenges.

It’s a scandalous confession for an administration that has repeatedly vowed to be the most transparent in history. The information comes straight from Jonathan Gruber, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) economist who served as a technical consultant to the Obama administration during the Affordable Care Act’s (Obamacare) design.

Gruber was recorded during a panel and the video recently surfaced and has been making the rounds on the internet.

“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes,” Gruber says. “If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. Okay, so it’s written to do that.  In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed… Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical for the thing to pass…”

Gruber also makes clear that the individual mandate, upheld by the Supreme Court only because it’s considered a tax, was not actually a tax in the original law because it never would have passed. The Obamacare designer is essentially saying that the administration intentionally deceived the public to push its hostile takeover of the nation’s healthcare system.

Pelosi What's in the bill“Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not,” Gruber says in the recorded presentation.

The Gruber tape marks the latest of many scandals involving Obamacare. Judicial Watch has been a frontrunner in exposing the healthcare law’s multiple boondoggles and has sued the administration on behalf of a South Florida orthodontist over the unlawful, one-year delay of the employer mandate.

The mandate, which subjects certain large employers to tax penalties if they don’t offer “affordable, minimum essential” health insurance coverage to their employees, was postponed without the approval of Congress.

It marked one of more than a dozen times that the administration unilaterally rewrote the healthcare law by executive fiat.

JW also sued the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to obtain records about controversial Obamacare navigators and their qualifications and background checks.

Earlier this year JW obtained records from HHS illustrating the scope of the Obamacare rollout disaster, including the fact that on its first full day of operation the government site—Healthcare.gov—received only one enrollment. On the second day of Healthcare.gov operation, 48% of registrations failed, according to the records obtained by JW as a result of a lawsuit.

Listen and watch here:

%CODE%

Obama Iran Agenda – 2nd Term Legacy Item Akin to ObamaCare

Editor’s Note – It is now official, Iran is Obama’s legacy goal for his second term just as ObamaCare was his first term legacy item. How do we know this? Ben Rhodes, a White House advisor tells us so in the article below. This may be new to most of the country, but it has been a theme of many of SUA’s Research Analyst, Denise Simon’s for a long time.

Her most recent article: “Iran Wins, the World Loses – Thanks Mr. Obama” on the subject and is one in a long series of articles pointing out the true goals of the Obama Administration on a nuclear Iran and the region. Please read that article and the following:

The Coming Détente with Iran

Column: Deputy National Security Adviser: Iran Deal ‘Is Healthcare For Us’

By Matthew Continetti – The Washington Free Beacon

Deputy National Security Adviser and MFA in creative writing Ben Rhodes likened an Iranian nuclear deal to Obamacare in a talk to progressive activists last January, according to audio obtained by theWashington Free Beacon.

The remarks, made at a since-discontinued regular meeting of White House personnel and representatives of liberal interest groups, reveal the importance of a rapprochement with Iran to President Obama, who is looking to establish his legacy as his presidency enters its lame-duck phase.

%CODE%

“Bottom line is, this is the best opportunity we’ve had to resolve the Iranian issue diplomatically, certainly since President Obama came to office, and probably since the beginning of the Iraq war,” Rhodes said. “So no small opportunity, it’s a big deal. This is probably the biggest thing President Obama will do in his second term on foreign policy. This is healthcare for us, just to put it in context.”

Rhodes made the comparison as the White House was reeling from the botched rollout of the $2 billion Healthcare.gov. Polls continue to show that the health law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, remains unpopular.

Rhodes also said the White House wants to avoid congressional scrutiny of any deal.

“We’re already kind of thinking through, how do we structure a deal so we don’t necessarily require legislative action right away,” Rhodes said. “And there are ways to do that.”

That is similar to what an unnamed senior administration official told David Sanger of the New York Times last week for a piece headlined “Obama Sees an Iran Deal That Could Avoid Congress”: “We wouldn’t seek congressional legislation in any comprehensive agreement for years.”

White House spokesman Eric Schultz denied the Times story. But it is not as though the Obama White House has fallen out of love with executive action.

The interim deal with Iran struck in November 2013, in which the administration traded sanctions relief worth billions of dollars for promises to limit nuclear fuel production, was extended in July and is now scheduled to lapse on November 24.

“I’m not going to give it odds,” Secretary of State John Kerry said Thursday of the chances of a final deal. “As I said to the president, I’m not going to express optimism, I’m going to express hope.”

And I am going to express fear. Fear that the chances of some sort of dangerous and misguided détente with Iran are high, and that they increase if Republicans capture the Senate and improve their majority in the House. Fear that the worse things get for Obama at home, the better the odds that he will hand the keys of the Middle East to Ayatollah Khamenei.

Fear that Obama sees an Iran deal not just as health care reform for the second term, but as his version of George W. Bush’s surge: a Hail Mary pass thrown in the fourth quarter in a long-shot attempt to salvage a legacy.

Bush ordered the surge despite having just lost an election. Obama is on the verge of losing another. And Obama will be no different from Bush in the pursuit of his desired ends.

Iran is Obama’s Iraq. It occupies the same place in the thinking of his administration that Iraq held in his predecessor’s. The desire for détente with Iran, for comity and diplomatic accord between longtime enemies, for a new Middle East in which security is left to regional stakeholders, and Shiite and Sunni alike see the United States as “evenhanded” in its treatment of Israelis and Palestinians, holds immense sway over the alliance of progressives and realists that conduct American foreign policy. It has for a decade.

“The support group should actively engage Iran and Syria in its diplomatic dialogue, without preconditions,” stated the report of the 2006 Iraq Study Group, authored in part by Ben Rhodes.

“To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent,” President Obama said in his first Inaugural Address, “know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”

He might as well have said it in Farsi.

Can’t you just see Obama and Jarrett, kicking back after a few glasses of Bordeaux at Restaurant Helen, rhapsodizing over the president’s unique perspective on the global south, quoting lines fromArgo, visualizing the day he makes the first presidential visit to Tehran since Carter? For six years the White House has been careful not to provide the Iranians with any reason to reject negotiations, to prevent his fantasy from becoming real. To the contrary: It has been solicitous of Iran and Syria, in a demonstration of its willingness to address their grievances.

That is why Democrats called Bashar al-Assad a reformer, why Obama remained silent during the 2009 protests over Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s rigged election, why the State Department doesn’t include human rights or ballistic missiles in the scope of its negotiations with Iran. It is why Obama has resisted overthrowing Assad even after he crossed the red line of chemical weapons use, why he refers to the “Islamic republic of Iran,” bestowing legitimacy on the revolutionary regime, and why administration officials reject congressional proposals to reinstate sanctions should the negotiations with Iran fail.

These decisions are not made in light of the national security interests of the United States. They are made to keep alive President Obama’s dream of peace with Iran. And the purpose of these decisions isn’t to mollify American politicians. It’s to satisfy Iranian ones.

“In the Iranian system, you essentially have three broad categories, to generalize,” Rhodes said last January. “You’ve got people who generally want to do a negotiation—I don’t know if they’re called moderates, but there are certainly people on their side who are serious about a deal.

“Then you’ve got hardliners who don’t want a deal at all and feel threatened by what’s going on. Then you’ve got people in the middle who are basically invested in this because the sanctions are hurting a lot and they feel compelled to do it. And they would do a deal in order to get one.”

%CODE2%

According to Rhodes’ logic, any move by the Americans that strengthens the hardliners at the expense of the other two groups decreases the chances of a deal. Our foreign policy is left hamstrung, in a vain and counterproductive and quite likely futile attempt to put Obama in the history books as the man who reestablished ties between the United States and Iran.

A Republican Congress would not only find itself ignored by the White House. It would find itself powerless to stop détente. The Democratic Congress voted repeatedly for timelines for withdrawal from Iraq. Bush vetoed them. Obama would do the same.

But there is one x-factor: Supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei, whose anti-Americanism is as deep as his Shiite radicalism. He has thwarted the ambitions of past American presidents who hoped to reconcile our two nations. There is no reason to assume he has had a change of heart. He is as aware as anyone of the president’s waning political fortunes.

Repudiated, isolated, ineffective, stymied, Obama cannot persuade the Iranians of the strength of the American position. So he will move as far as he can in the direction of the Iranian one. Unable to make Iran pro-American, he will settle for making America pro-Iranian. It is part of his dismal, pathetic, ill considered, shortsighted, and injurious “legacy.”

Civil Servants – Served Like 'Members Only' Club

Editor’s Note – Picking winners and losers, coddling the ruling elite and the ‘Members Only’ class, the Obama administration has proven that ‘let them eat cake’ is not just reserved for Marie Antoinette, it’s exactly how his administration has been operating throughout his presidency.

The government is designed, through the Constitution, to serve America, hence the term civil servant. Yet, under this regime and that of both Houses of Congress, we continue to be treated as second class; an under class now serving those inside the beltway.eatcake

The proof is in starkly relief once again, Obama cut a deal with lawmakers and their staff to fund a huge chunk of their Obamacare mandate expenses, before Congress went into its annual August recess. Again, we see selective application of the law as waivers are granted and only certain segments of the law are to be enforced as written into the law.

Without so much as a whimper, voters, especially low information voters, along with the sycophants in the Main Stream Media are giving the Obama regime a pass once again.

Members Only – How the White House is weaseling Congress out of Obama Care

By The Wall Street Journal

The White House on Wednesday released the legal details behind its Obama Care bailout for Members of Congress and their staffs, and if anything this rescue is worse than last week’s leaks suggested: Illegal dispensations for the ruling class, different rules for the hoi polloi.

Thanks to an amendment from Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley that Democrats enacted in 2010, the Affordable Care Act says that “the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available” to Congress are the ones offered on the Obama Care insurance exchanges. But Members and many aides have been flipping out because they won’t qualify for Obama Care subsidies and they’ll lose employer contributions they now receive under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, or FEHBP, which picks up about three-quarters of the average premium.

At President Obama’s personal request, the Office of Personnel Management decreed that the Members don’t have to get off the gravy train after all. The eat-your-own-cooking provision begins with the phrase “Notwithstanding any other provision of law.” The feds now interpret that clause as a loophole to mean that the Affordable Care Act did not change the 1959 law that created the FEHBP.

hypocrisySince Members and staff still technically meet the definition of federal employees qualified for the FEHBP, the Administration says they’re still entitled to enroll in the FEHBP concurrently with the exchanges. The feds then “clarify”—their euphemism—that the regulatory meaning of health benefits in the FEHBP can be Obama Care plans. Voila, taxpayers will continue to chip in $4,900 for individual and $10,000 for family coverage.

The charitable term for such legal gymnastics is creative. When statutes conflict, the bedrock administrative law obligation is to enforce the most recent statute. “Notwithstanding” clauses are routine catchalls that are supposed to emphasize Congress’s intent that a new bill is controlling and pre-empts other laws on the books.

The White House is claiming the clause means the opposite, as if the 2010 law and the 1959 law have nothing to do with each other. That is not how it is supposed to work. When Congress kicked itself out of the traditional FEHBP, it kicked itself out of the FEHBP.

At least the Members will still have to sign up for exchange coverage as the law requires. Given the lawless White House record, it probably considered finding some excuse to exempt Congress entirely and decided that option was too explosive politically. But creating a special financing stream for the political class is almost as much of an abuse.

Obama Care’s complex subsidy system, with varying levels based on income, is not incidental to the exchanges. It’s the beating heart of this exercise in wealth redistribution and social and economic central planning. The entitlement’s architects never envisioned that well-to-do movers and shakers—Mr. Obama might even call some of them “the rich”—would get (or deserve) taxpayer benefits merely because they happen to run for or work for Congress.

Millionaire Senators and the affluent professionals who are chiefs of staff, legislative directors and the like were supposed to go on the exchange and abide by its rules. There are only three insurers offering public utility-type plans on the Washington, D.C. Obama Care exchange. The FEHBP sponsors 21 plans in metro D.C. and 24 in Virginia. Perhaps as a new perquisite the White House will entice a plan to the exchange that only Members can choose.

It would have been fairer and less corrosive to the rule of law had Congress simply passed a bill giving their workers a raise to make up for the lost compensation of dropping out of the FEHBP. But that would mean an ugly political fight that voters might notice. It’s so much easier to slip through this political fix in August when Congress is out of session and the press corps can’t wait to hit the beach.

AARP in bed with Obama Care

Editor’s Note – Reliancing on plausible deniability, many organizations have supported Obama and his endeavors in the hope that over time, busy Americans would overlook much. Thanks to the internet though, it is becoming more difficult to hide such relationships. There is also that wonderful FOIA Law (Freedom of Information Act), and watchdog groups forcing communications to be made public. Here is just one more case:

Strassel: The Love Song of AARP and Obama

Newly released emails reveal the ‘nonpartisan’ group’s stealthy White House alliance on health care.

By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL – Wall Street Journal

When Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan address the AARP on Friday, good manners will no doubt keep them from asking this question: How can that lobby claim to speak for American seniors given its partisan role in passing ObamaCare?

Thanks to just-released emails from the House Energy and Commerce Committee, we now know that AARP worked through 2009-10 as an extension of a Democratic White House, toiling daily to pass a health bill that slashes $716 billion from Medicare, strips seniors of choice, and sets the stage for rationing. We know that despite AARP’s awareness that its seniors overwhelmingly opposed the bill, the “nonpartisan membership organization” chose to serve the president’s agenda.

The 71 pages of emails show an AARP management taking orders from the White House, scripting the president’s talking points, working to keep its board “in line,” and pledging fealty to “the cause.” Seniors deserve to know all this, as AARP seeks to present itself as neutral in this presidential election.

The emails overall show an AARP leadership—Policy Chief John Rother, Health Policy Director Nora Super, Executive Vice President Nancy LeaMond, Senior Vice President David Sloane—that from the start worked to pass ObamaCare, before crucial details pertaining to seniors had been addressed. This crew was in constant contact with Mr. Obama’s top aides, in particular Nancy-Ann DeParle and Jim Messina.

As early as July 2009, Mr. Sloane was sending the administration—”as promised”—his “message points” on Medicare. Ms. DeParle assured him “I think you will hear some of your lines tomorrow” in President Obama’s speech—which he did. Mr. Rother advised the White House on its outreach, discouraging Mr. Obama from addressing seniors since “he may not be the most effective messinger [sic] . . . at least to the McCain constituency.” Better to manage these folks, he counsels, through the “authoritative voices of doctors and nurses.”

AARP had long lambasted cuts in fees to Medicare doctors because reduced payments would mean fewer doctors who accept patients with the insurance. Yet in its campaign for ObamaCare, it argued the money the health law strips from Medicare—by imposing price controls on hospitals—would improve “care.” When the organization tried to sell the line to its own people, it didn’t go well. Ms. Super told Obama officials in June 2009: “It was actually a heavy lift for us to convince many at AARP that Medicare ‘savings’ (which they read as cuts) is not bad for beneficiaries.” Note the “savings” quote marks.

Even in November 2009, as the ObamaCare debate progressed, Ms. LeaMond worried that the Medicare spin wasn’t working against public criticism of the bill. She emailed Mr. Messina and Ms. DeParle that she was “seized” with “concerns about extended coherent, strong messaging by Republicans on the Medicare savings.” To pull off the legislation, she mused, “we”—the White House and AARP—will need a “concerted strategy.”

In August 2009, AARP had already unveiled a national advertising blitz for ObamaCare, to ensure that “every member of Congress knows the 50-plus community wants action to fix what’s wrong with healthcare.” The group made this claim despite weeks of daily tracking showing its members in revolt against the president’s plan.

July 23, 2009: AARP reported to the White House that 1,031 members called in against the proposed health-care changes; 77 called in support. July 28, 2009: 4,174 opposed; 36 in support. July 29, 2009: 2,656 opposed; 23 in support. Mr. Sloane told the White House that AARP lost 1,897 members in a single day “in disagreement over our position on health reform.” All the reports to Team Obama were accompanied by AARP’s request to keep the information “close,” apparently so word didn’t leak that seniors hate ObamaCare. And the ad blitz went on.

Was AARP sending these tracking reports to its outside board of directors—its governing body? Maybe not: AARP staff seemed to view the board as a problem. In June 2009, Ms. Super emailed Obama budget guy Keith Fontenot: The AARP board is meeting, she said, and we “need to get their buy-in on several proposals,” including the president’s Medicare cuts, which “as you might imagine, they are a bit concerned about.” Could he share ideas with her? “It would really help get them on Board.”

When Mr. Rother was asked in December 2009 by the White House to attend an event with Mr. Obama, he declined. “I am presenting to my Board on health reform” on the same day,he wrote. “I think you want me to keep my Board in line, so please understand my need to regret.”

AARP was, however, on 24-hour alert to do the White House’s political bidding. Typical is a March 2010 email exchange about Rep. Larry Kissell, a North Carolina Democrat who remained a “no” vote as ObamaCare neared its endgame. Labor boss Andy Stern emailed Mr. Messina—”Kissel [sic] a Problem”—and advised bringing in the AARP guns. Mr. Messina forwarded the note to Ms. LeaMond, with the word “Help.” “On it,” she quickly responded. Soon after: Does Mr. Messina want AARP to have its board chairman arrange a meeting, or just call the congressman “right away?” “Both?” Mr. Messina asked. “Will do,” she assured him. Rep. Kissell voted no.

In an interview, AARP spokesman Jim Dau and Legislative Policy Director David Certner noted that the lobby was committed to health-care reform long before Mr. Obama’s election, that it pushed for policy additions to the bill that were crucial for seniors, and that it did not endorse legislation until AARP’s priorities were met. They said that the board was kept informed and that AARP faced similar criticism when it worked with the GOP on a drug benefit in 2003.

“We get criticized, but we never take our eye off the ball when it comes to pursuing things that are good for our members,” says Mr. Dau. “We make no apologies for our advocacy.”

AARP’s ardent efforts on behalf of ObamaCare bear a resemblance to the work of the drug and health industry in 2009—with one significant difference. Those industries’ backroom dealing was motivated by financial self-interest. What motivated AARP, given that its membership of 37 million people 50 years old and older was clearly opposed to ObamaCare, since they recognized that it would hurt them? The answer appears to be: pure ideology.

In October 2009, Ms. Super expressed frustration that the Senate might strip more spending from the bill. She declared to colleagues: “I’m heading up to the House now where at least Democrats are Democrats (sort of).” Ms. Super is now working for Mr. Obama’s Health and Human Services Department.

In November 2009, Mr. Rother declined a White House request to have an AARP person take part in a roundtable. “I think we will try to keep a little space between us and the White House,” he explained, adding that AARP’s “polling” shows the organization is more “influential when we are seen as independent.” He wanted “to reinforce that positioning,” said the man working daily to pass ObamaCare, since “the larger issue is how to best serve the cause.” Mr. Rother has left AARP and now leads the liberal National Coalition on Health Care.

When the health-care reform bill passed the House in March 2010, Ms. LeaMondexuberantly emailed Mr. Messina: “This is the new AARP-WH/Hill—LeaMond/Messina relationship. . . . Seriously, a great victory for you and the President.”

But not one for America’s seniors, who had looked to AARP to oppose ObamaCare’s cuts and rationing. That’s worth remembering come the next AARP bulletin to seniors offering its “balanced” view on issues.

Boehner message to Republican caucus – civility on PPACA ruling

Editor’s Note – SUA agrees with the Speaker of the House. In a time where so much is wrong with our nation, our ability to live, and a world on fire, the time for civility is now. The law was passed in a very unseemly, un-American, un-constitutional way by those who will say and do anything for political ideology, there is no need to stoop to their level by being haughty.

We believe that the Supreme Court will vote 6 to 3 to completely overturn the PPACA (Obama Care), rendering the argument that the court is “activist” and controlled by right-wing zealots as a non-starter. The court would be judging for the best interest of the constitution, not political slant, and it should not be twisted into some campaign banner even if it is 5 to 4.

“No Spiking of the Ball” – Speaker Boehner memo to House Republicans

by Greta Van Susteren – GretaWire

Speaker of the House, John Boehner (R-Ohio)

M E M O

To: House Republicans

From: Speaker Boehner

Re: U.S. Supreme Court Ruling on President Obama’s Health Care Law

Date: 21 June 2012

Next week, as you know, the Supreme Court of the United States is expected to issue a ruling on the constitutionality of President Obama’s health care law. In the months since oral arguments were heard by the Court, we have worked diligently with each other, as well as our colleagues in the Senate and in state capitols across the country, to analyze all of the potential rulings and their impact on the American people.

No one knows what the Court will decide, and none of us would presume to know. But if the Court strikes down all or part of the president’s health care law, there will be no spiking of the ball. Republicans are focused on the economy – and under President Obama’s policies, our economy is struggling. We will not celebrate at a time when millions of our fellow Americans remain out of work, the national debt has exceeded the size of our nation’s economy, health costs continue to rise, and small businesses are struggling to hire. ObamaCare has contributed to all of these problems. Repealing it completely is part of the solution. . .but it is only one part.

Americans opposed the president’s health care law when it was enacted, and they have only grown more opposed to it since then. From listening to the people, Republicans know the critical points remain these:

The president’s health care law is making things worse – driving up health costs and making it harder for small businesses to hire workers. The only way to change this is by repealing ObamaCare in its entirety.

Unless the Court throws out the entire law, we need to repeal what is left of ObamaCare and enact common-sense, step-by-step reforms that protect Americans’ access to the care they need, from the doctor they choose, at a lower cost.

Republicans will not repeat the Democrats’ mistakes. We won’t rush to pass a massive bill the American people don’t support.

Health care coverage has become too expensive for too many people. The number-one health care concern of families and small business is the cost of health care, and Republicans’ health care reforms will lower costs.

Women make approximately 80 percent of the health care decisions made for their families. Republican health care reforms will ensure families and doctors make health care decisions — not Washington.

We want families to be able to make their own choices in health care, visit the doctor of their choosing, and receive the health care they and their doctor feel is best. Those decisions shouldn’t be made by Washington.

As I, Leader Cantor, Whip McCarthy and other leaders have made clear in recent days, the House will act in the coming weeks on legislation to repeal any part of ObamaCare that is left standing by the Supreme Court. Such action is critical for jobs and our economy and for the health care of millions of American families.

House GOP Conference Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), Conference Vice-Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), and Policy Chairman Tom Price (R-GA) will be helping to lead our response efforts in the days immediately following the ruling. I commend them for their efforts. If you would like to be involved in our coordinated response efforts following the ruling but have not yet contacted the Conference, please have your staff do so today.