Congressman Rick Berg today released a statement commending the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision to review the constitutionality of President Obama's government overhaul of America's health care system.
"North Dakotans have sent a clear message to Washington that they did not want President Obama's government takeover of health care," Berg stated. "Obamacare forces numerous barriers to care and new costs upon America's small businesses and families in a time when many Americans are already struggling to make ends meet. Further, President Obama's health care overhaul threatens our seniors' access to affordable care by cutting $500 billion from Medicare and putting an unelected board of bureaucrats in charge of Medicare services and payment. I welcome the Supreme Court's decision to rule on Obamacare's constitutionality, and as the Supreme Court hears this case, I will continue to fight to put an end to President Obama's burdensome and costly health care overhaul and work for real reform that North Dakotans have asked for."
Congressman Berg has ardently fought to repeal President Obama's health care law since being sworn into Congress. He served as an original co-sponsor to H.R. 2, the "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act" and spoke on the House floor in support of the repeal. While H.R. 2 passed the House by a vote of 245 to 189, Senate Democrats blocked the House's efforts to repeal Obamacare this spring.
Federal courts in Virginia and Florida have ruled that the health care law's individual mandate is unconstitutional. North Dakota was one of twenty-six states participating in the Florida lawsuit, which is the challenge that will be considered by the Supreme Court. Additionally, more than 1,000 waivers to the health care law have already been granted to businesses and organizations who have sought exemption from the law's mandates.
In its grant of Certiorari the Supreme Court will review:
1. The constitutionality of individual mandate;
2. The severability of the individual mandate from the rest of the Democrats' health care law (the purpose of this is to determine that if the mandate is ruled unconstitutional, whether the remainder of the law will be null and void;) and,
3. Whether a challenge to the individual mandate is barred by the "Anti-Injunction Act," (does the Court have to wait until an individual actually pays the penalty for failing to comply with the individual mandate before a challenge to its constitutionality can be heard.)