With Republicans seemingly reaching a consensus on the plan to replace President Obama’s healthcare law, it appears that the GOP may finally fulfill its campaign promises to repeal and replace Obamacare. But according to the United Nations, repealing Obamacare without an adequate replacement would be in violation of multiple international laws. The latest U.N. intrusion in American policies is likely to provide fodder for critics who claim the United Nations is destructive to the sovereignty of the United States.
Republicans may be ready to move to a vote on a new proposal for the Obamacare replacement plan after the House Freedom Caucus, which stayed true to its conservative principles and opposed Trump’s first healthcare plan, gave its approval. This proposal would permit states to opt out of federal mandates that insurers cover certain “essential health benefits,” such as maternity care, mental health care, and substance abuse services.
Whether the new proposal meets the United Nations’ standards is another story, however. On February 2, the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner on Human Rights in Geneva sent an “urgent appeal” to President Trump that the repeal of the Affordable Care Act could put the United States “at odds with its international obligations.”
The memo, signed by Dainius Puras — whose title is the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health — expresses concerns that a repeal of Obamacare could cost 30 million people the “right to health.”
The memo claims that the measures to repeal Obamacare could seriously harm “the rights to the enjoyment of the highest sustainable standard of physical and mental health and the right to social security of the people in the United States of America.”
Unfortunately, Puras is conflating access to health insurance with access to medical care. It is not the role of the federal government to insure all Americans, but rather to ensure that all Americans have access to adequate and affordable medical care, none of which was achieved under Obamacare. Only a truly competitive free market can offer affordable and accessible healthcare, and it seems neither Democrats nor Republicans know how to deliver that.
According to a study by Brian Frankie at the Federalist, more Americans actually experienced premature deaths following the passage of Obamacare in 2010. Of course, this does not necessarily prove causation, but what it does prove is that Obamacare had no positive impact on mortality rates in the United States either, so claiming that repealing Obamacare would cost 30 million people the “right to health” is not only misleading but also inaccurate.
Additionally, the legal reasoning within the memo is based on a notion of rights that is antithetical to the God-given, inalienable rights enshrined in the United States Constitution. The memo also cites numerous global agreements, some of which the United States had not even ratified, and others that are downright unconstitutional.
It’s also worth noting that Puras serves the UN “Human Rights Council,” which is dominated by dictators who are notorious for their own human-rights abuses, so the notion that this council is any sort of purveyor of morality is laughable to its critics.
Unlike with the previous administration, it is doubtful that the Trump administration will heed any warning by the United Nations. Under President Obama’s leadership, U.N. intrusion into American affairs became commonplace through items such as Agenda 21 and the Strong Cities Network. President Trump, however, has been an outspoken critic of the globalist body, particularly after the Iran deal and the resolution against Israeli settlements.
“We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect,” Trump tweeted following the U.N. vote in December. “They used to have a great friend in the US, but not anymore. The beginning of the end was the horrible Iran deal, and now this!”
Of course, the United Nations has no way of imposing its will on the United States. Still, it may prove to be the motivation the United States needs to consider ending its relationship with the globalist world body, something that the U.N. could not afford. After all, the United States is the biggest contributor to the United Nations’ budget, funding 22 percent of the body’s annual costs. But a bipartisan group in Congress has expressed interest in cutting the contribution. Likewise, in January, Alabama Congressman Mike Rogers introduced a bill to end U.S. membership in the United Nations, entitled the American Sovereignty Restoration Act.
The anti-U.N. sentiment is not limited to just the United States. A global effort to replace the United Nations with an international forum open exclusively to free and democratic nations has been launched as well, dubbed the “Covenant of Democratic Nations.” In January, the Covenant of Democratic Nations held a “Global Launch” on Capitol Hill. The invitation for the event read, “The United Nations has outlived its usefulness and must be replaced with a new international body, one comprised solely of those nations governed by democratic principles, devoted to genuine democracy, equality and peaceful relations throughout the world.”
The New York Times says that the United States House of Representatives could have a vote on the new Obamacare replacement proposal as early as Friday. If the United Nations thought its memo was going to have any effect on the Trump administration, it was clearly mistaken.