Implausible Deniability: Politicians Who Won’t Fully Repeal Obamacare and All Progressivism Are the Most Accountable for Progressivism’s Existence and Tyranny

285 representatives voted to denounce socialism in all its forms and oppose the implementation of socialist policies in the United States.

Socialism, though, as Austrian School economist Jesús Huerta de Soto explains, is “any system of institutional aggression on the free exercise of entrepreneurship.” The USA’s Progressive administrative governments are highly-developed institutional aggression on the free exercise of entrepreneurship.

A case in point is in healthcare. Government control has been layered up in multiple jurisdictions over many decades. Government healthcare regulators exercise prolific control over academic training, research funding, research publishing, drug and device legality and rules, service-producer legality and training funding and rules, payer legality and rules, and tax incentives. Government regulators have marginalized end users, making it very hard for end users to obtain quality and price information and choose the products most likely to provide optimal value. Amazon Physical Gift C... Check Amazon for Pricing.

Voluntary cooperation is robustly-protected and is loss-limiting. Under voluntary cooperation, the customers are king. Customers are ruthless, relentlessly selecting for the best prices and quality. Customers make producers relentlessly improve. With products increasingly affordable, voluntary charity then produces also increasing benefits and generates the least dependency and waste.

A system with government regulation, in contrast, has a single point of failure, and from there the system compounds and cascades losses. Under government regulators, crony producers are given the upper hand. Government regulators disfavor competitors, relentlessly selecting for the best donors. Government regulators make crony producers relentlessly maximize donations. With products increasingly unaffordable, forced takings of property for public use without just compensation then also produce diminishing returns and generate the most dependency and waste.

In healthcare, the only new legislation that would be helpful would be to pass customer-friendly healthcare-product descriptions and to require producers to list their prices for each product they sell. This would be the definition of regulating commerce constitutionally. Doing this for healthcare would be particularly appropriate to jump-start the exchange of information, since producers and customers have long been aggressed against, leaving normal commercial information exchange ungerminated.

A meaningful initial repeal would be to fully repeal Obamacare. Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Az.) introduced a bill to fully repeal Obamacare on January 3, 2025. It was immediately referred to committees, and no further actions have since been recorded. Instead, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) introduced a bill, the Health Marketplace for All Act of 2025, on June 17, 2025, that would keep all of Obamacare’s requirements and would allow health marketplace pools to be created, adding funding. It, too, was immediately referred to a committee, and no further actions have since been recorded. Still worse, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Id.) and Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) circulated a plan to keep propping up Obamacare after the initial 2021 covid-era subsidies ended on December 31, 2025, by subsidizing health savings accounts. Now, Trump has proposed expanding Mike Crapo and Bill Cassidy’s approach, keeping the HSA framework and adding drug price controls, government oversight, and posted pricing for the same-as-ever regulated products.

Amazon Physical Gift C... Check Amazon for Pricing. Repeals happen most often when majority legislators recently gained power and agree with one another closely enough. Repeals don’t happen at other times because legislators can’t logroll repeals, minority legislators resist to protect their party’s brand, and entrenched interests resist repeals to protect their gravy trains. Leaving constituents deprived of rights just to logroll, defend failed actions and associated messaging, and represent special interests—this is indefensible.

Why don’t politicians instead just do the right thing and let the chips fall where they may? Probably in significant part because most politicians lack the understanding of what works: that the general welfare is maximized when governments are severely limited. Politicians need to understand this to be able and to understand the incentivizes to choose the most excellent way.

The politicians who enact a statute have the least information about its effects, so they’re the least accountable. Those who follow have ever-more information, so they’re ever-more accountable.

Politicians blaming past politicians for current policies can’t wash their hands of their own accountability by simply claiming such manifestly implausible deniability. Politicians must instead repeal.

Filibuster/cloture is not a valid excuse for not repealing. It’s unconstitutional for each minority senator’s vote to count more than each majority senator’s vote.

Further, in practice simple-majority voting is always best for freedom. Simple-majority voting facilitates repeals that bring benefits quickly. These benefits hold the repeals in place long-term. Also, simple-majority voting facilitates new power-grabs that bring benefits too, soon enough. New power-grabs provoke strong pushback, which takes the form of repeals together with additional positive changes that go even further.

A program of comprehensive full repeals would be simple, would require no planning, and would be massively effective and popular, finally delivering the change that majorities of voters keep voting for. It would rescue the Republicans’ congressional majorities and presidency.

To spur politicians on, activists and media must insist on repeals. Activists and media must accept nothing less.

The Best of James Anthony