1) No Congress can handcuff future Congresses. Such a a huge all-encompassing “effect all citizens” measure as a national health care scheme deserves (and requires) passage in a bipartisan manner. It is unreasonable for the federal government to assume control ~1/7 of the US economy affecting virtually all citizens with a totally partisan vote that would never have occurred before or since (over a 50+ year time frame that it has been discussed) except in a momentary few month period when it is was rammed through without public support. Previous “landmark” legislation such as Social Security, Medicare, and the 1964 Civil Rights bills enjoyed substantial bipartisan support. Obamacare had (and has) none.
Despite the Congressional razor-thin margins of passage of the ACA (in both House and Senate), consistent public opinion is not now and never has been supportive of this measure. The graph shows incredibly consistent public sentiment AGAINST Obamacare. As I write this the margin against is 13.5 percentage points. Were an election to reflect such results, it would be properly viewed as a drubbing yet the Senate Democrats push on to maintain the unpopular measure pretending they are on the right side of public opinion. It should concern us all when a measure enjoys more popularity in the Congress than it does in the country.
2) In disregard of Constitutional requirements that revenue bills originate in the House, The ACA bill (H.R. 3590) didn't exist in the House as a revenue raising measure. It is true that a single sentence of the 2-page House Bill, which was entitled “Service Member's Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009” did slightly increase the penalty for a failure to file a tax return for a small number of filers. Such a “other purposes” clause, with a small impact and unmentioned in the purpose or title of the bill, fails to materially establish the House bill as a revenue bill. While the bill number did originate in the House (before the title and contents was completely replaced by the Senate), it seems unlikely that Madison included the Constitutional requirement in order to administratively control bill numbers. Though perhaps not legally binding, future President James Garfield captured the the spirit of the Constitutional requirement in 1872 (while in the US House) when he said, “I do not deny their [the Senate’s] right to send back a bill of a thousand pages as an amendment to our two lines. But I do insist that their thousand pages must be on the subject matter of our bill”. Obamacare certainly doesn't meet this reasonable expectation.
3) Despite numerous promises, it doesn't lower costs and frequently you can't keep your doctors and plans. Besides that, it is not really “insurance” at all. If I can postpone getting insurance until I need it (because pre-existing conditions can't be denied) then what I then demand is not insurance but a subsidy.
4) It is not treated as “the law of the land” by the Obama administration (despite their zeal that all others do so). The administration has granted numerous waivers, many not allowed by statute, including the employer mandate delay. Arguably the most egregious waiver excludes Congressional staffs and Congressmen themselves. Something is fundamentally wrong when the lawmakers don't have to abide by the laws they construct for and require of others. In addition, private employment is shifting toward part-time (where coverage is not required), many companies are canceling coverage, jobs are being lost. The economy is being hurt by the ACA. The government has missed or ignored a majority of it's own deadlines. It's not clear that the healthcare 'exchanges' will be ready starting Oct 1.
5) It was never intended to become law in the form that it was passed. The Senate passed this measure on Christmas Eve 2009 after an unprecedented 25 consecutive calendar days in session (as Harry Reid refused to allow Senate members to return home and listen to their constituents on the the subject of health care prior to a vote). The House had previously, in Nov 2009, passed a different health care bill (HR 3962). The intent was for the two bills to be reconciled in committee resulting in a final bill, yet the election of Scott Brown in Mass (to Ted Kennedy's old Senate seat) late in January 2010 promised that the sitting Senate would not pass any future health care bill. The only remedy was for the desperate House Democrats to pass the Senate bill exactly-as-it-was in the House. This they did despite it's many weaknesses (that the ensuing months and years have begun to painfully reveal).
6) Congress has reneged on the numerous vote-buying deals that were supposedly “agreed to” in order to pass ObamaCare. The supposed ban on abortion services turns out to be empty and the Cornhusker kickback was canceled (by simply extended extra cash to all states!). And in a shining example of pure unadulterated back-room graft, Senator Mary Landrieu's “Louisiana Purchase”, special funding for JUST her state ballooned from $100 million to over $4 Billion then finally settled at ~ $1.6 Billion. Congratulations, we all bribed Louisiana in order to pass ObamaCare. What a deal.
7) The single payer (read that as “centrally planned”) ultimate 'goal' of many supporters of a government controlled healthcare system is economically untenable in the US. Existing single payer systems around the globe are small compared to the US system and rely upon it for pricing signals. If the US were to go single-payer there would be no external pricing information to guide the central planners in their task. Soviet style chaos including shortages and staffing mismatchs would quickly erupt and cause the system to badly misappropriate resources.
8) Chief Justice Robert's inexplicable and illogical Supreme Court decision is a horrible precedent. It established that the federal government can demand virtually any behavior it wishes (including economic activity) using taxes to compel compliance. Such a limitless tool for social engineering and behavior modification is inconsistent with a free society.
9) Recent abusive and inappropriate data gathering and information procedures (NSA, IRS, Dept of Justice, Obamacare “navigators” etc.) demonstrate that the government in general and this administration in particular is not prepared to protect the privacy of American citizens and cannot be trusted with broad access to the health records of all Americans.
10) The raft of Federal dictates and intrusions which stem from this legislation are anathema to a free society. Despite the negative public sentiment, the poorly written text containing many errors and unintended measures, the poorly executed nature of this law it is clear that the zeal to exert control over the lives of Americans in the minds of progressive politicians is apparently insatiable.
Conclusion: Where is the Obamacare supporter (or Legislator?) that will defend ALL these points?