Tag: aca

From the Annals of ObamaCare: ‘Illinois Suspends Insurance Exchange Setup’

Here’s the story from WIUS, the NPR affiliate at the University of Illinois Springfield:

A health exchange is one of the main initial components of the Affordable Care Act.

It’s basically a table of insurance plans people who don’t currently have coverage could choose from once the national health care law hits its stride. If it ever does.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in March challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare.

“I’ve suspended the talks on the Illinois insurance exchange until the Supreme Court makes its decision, which we expect in June,” Rep. Frank Mautino (D- Spring Valley), who has been leading Illinois’ talks to set up the exchange, said.

“As the negotiator, it’s very difficult to have … businesses – decide how much they’re willing to pay to run an exchange, when the federal law may go away. So I’ve lost a lot of the strength of negotiation,” he said.

Controversial aspects include who’ll run the exchange, how much power insurance companies will get, and who’ll pay for it.

About 50 organizations, including insurance companies, business groups, and health care advocates had been meeting weekly.

Audio is also available here.

Democrats control the executive and legislative branches of government in Illinois.

Sometimes, Governments Lie (6th Anniversary Ed.)

(This blog post first appeared at Cato@Liberty following the release of the 2006 Medicare and Social Security trustees’ reports. I repost it, with updated links and “exhaustion dates” because sadly nothing else has changed.)

Sometimes, Governments Lie

Year after year, federal officials speak of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds as if they were real.  Yesterday Today, the government announced that the Social Security trust fund will be exhausted in 2040 2033 and that the Medicare hospital insurance trust fund will be exhausted in 2018 2024— projections that the media dutifully reported.

But those dates are meaningless, because there are no assets for these “trust funds” to exhaust.  The Bush administration wrote in its FY2007 budget proposal:

These balances are available to finance future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures—but only in a bookkeeping sense. These funds…are not assets…that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits…When trust fund holdings are redeemed to pay benefits, Treasury will have to finance the expenditure in the same way as any other Federal expenditure: out of current receipts, by borrowing from the public, or by reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large trust fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, increase the Government’s ability to pay benefits.

This is similar to language in the Clinton administration’s FY2000 budget, which noted that the size of the trust fund “does not…have any impact on the Government’s ability to pay benefits” (emphasis added).

I offer the following proposition:

If the government knows that there are no assets in the Social Security and Medicare “trust funds,” and yet projects the interest earned on those non-assets and the date on which those non-assets will be exhausted, then the government is lying.

If that’s the case, then these annual trustees reports constitute an institutionalized, ritualistic lie.  Also ritualistic is the media’s uncritical repetition of the lie.

Alan Blinder Owes Me $5 for Wasting My Time

In today’s Wall Street Journal, Alan Blinder writes one of the most error-ridden and discourse-debasing op-eds I have ever read. About any topic. Ever.

A sampling:

[O]ur country was founded on the idea that the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable. Access to affordable health care is surely essential to two of these three rights, maybe to all three.

This is absurd. Does Blinder really mean to say that until about a hundred years ago, when modern medicine really began, the lack of access to affordable health care alienated every single human being to walk the Earth from their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

I wish people would think—long and hard—before they write about health care. Especially the smart ones.

Yes, Ms. Pelosi, We’ve Been Serious the Whole Time

The start of my latest Obamacare op-ed, hot off the pixels:

“Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?”  With those words, Justice Anthony Kennedy sent the legal establishment reeling.

Was the Supreme Court really taking seriously the preposterous claims of the Tea Party-inspired hacks who were suing the federal government?  Was there really a chance that five justices, acting as would-be partisan hacks themselves, would throw out President Obama’s signature achievement?  Could Obamacare, which name everyone is now allowed to use because the administration itself has adopted it, really fall on some technicality about mandating economic activity rather than regulating it when it occurs?

In a word, yes.

Read the whole thing at CNN.com.

Obamacare Argument Post-Mortem

Now that I’ve woken from the first full night’s sleep since the Supreme Court’s three-day Obamacare marathon began, I can share my thoughts on how the argument went, in case you haven’t seen my first and second days’ reports for the Daily Caller:

  1. The Anti-Injunction Act: On an argument day that can best be described as the calm before the storm, it quickly became clear that the Supreme Court would reach the constitutional issues everyone cares about. That is, regardless of how the justices resolve the hyper-technical issue of whether the Anti-Injunction Act is “jurisdictional,” this law – which prevents people from challenging taxes before they’re assessed or collected – does not apply to the Obamacare litigation. There were also hints that the Court was skeptical of the government’s backup merits argument that the individual mandate was justified under the Constitution’s taxing power. Perhaps the only surprising aspect of the hearing was how “cold” the bench was; it’s rare for the justices to allow advocates to speak at length without interruption, but that’s what they generally did today. That’s yet another indication that the Court will get past the AIA appetizer to the constitutional entree.
  2. The individual mandate: From Justice Kennedy’s noting that the government is fundamentally transforming the relationship of the individual to the government, to Chief Justice Roberts’s concern that “all bets are off” if Congress can enact economic mandates, to Justice Alito’s invocation of a hypothetical burial-insurance mandate, to Justice Scalia’s focusing on the “proper” prong of the Necessary and Proper Clause – and grimacing throughout the solicitor general’s argument – it was a good day for those challenging the individual mandate.  Paul Clement and Mike Carvin, who argued for the plaintiffs, did a masterful job on that score, showing again and again the unprecedented and limitless nature of the government’s assertion of federal power.  The solicitor general meanwhile, had a shaky opening and never could quite articulate the limiting principle to the government’s theory that at least four justices (and presumably the silent Justice Thomas) were seeking.  While trying to predict Supreme Court decisions is a fool’s game, the wise should take note that if Tuesday’s argument is any indication, Obamacare is in constitutional trouble.
  3. Severability: The most likely ruling on severability is that all of Obamacare will fall along with its fatally flawed individual mandate.  While such a result would be legally correct, it would still be stunning.  Perhaps even more remarkable is that the severability argument proceeded under the general assumption that the mandate would indeed be struck down.  This was not a mere hypothetical situation about which the justices speculated, but rather a very real, even probable, event.  There’s still a possibility that a “third way” will develop between the government’s position (mandate plus “guaranteed issue” and “community rating”) and that of the challengers (the whole law) – perhaps Titles I and II, as Justices Breyer and Alito mused (and as Cato’s brief detailed) – but the only untenable position would be to sever the mandate completely from a national regulatory scheme that obviously wouldn’t work without it.
  4. Medicaid expansion/coercion: The justices don’t want to reach the factually complicated and legally thorny Medicaid issue.  That may be another marginal factor pushing one or more of them to strike down all of Obamacare under a straightforward severability analysis and leave the “spending clause coercion” issue for another day.  This was perhaps the most difficult of the four issues to predict, and having heard argument doesn’t really make that task easier.  A majority of the Court was troubled by the government’s “your money or your life” stance, but it’s not clear what standard can be applied to distinguish coercion from mere inducements.  Then again, if this isn’t federal coercion of the states, I’m not sure what is.

General post-argument reaction: All of my pre-argument intuitions were confirmed, and then some:  The Court will easily get past the AIA, probably strike down the individual mandate, more likely than not taking with it all or most of the rest of the law (including the Medicaid expansion).  Still, it was breathtaking to be in the courtroom to see the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Alito all on the same page.  (For example, when Justice Kennedy’s first question during yesterday’s hearing was, “Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?” – a question hostile to the government – my heart began racing.)  Much as I’d love to think that my briefs helped get them there even a little bit, ultimately it’s the strength of the constitutional claims and the weakness of the government’s positions that prevailed – or will prevail if the opinions that come down in three months follow along the lines set by this week’s arguments.  They may not of course – trying to predict the Supreme Court isn’t a science—but I’m coming out of this week feeling very good.

Finally, for links to all of Cato’s briefs and my last series of op-eds on the Obamacare litigation, see Monday’s blog post.

Gingrich Campaign Responds: Newt Counsels States to ‘Resist’ Implementation of ObamaCare

Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign has responded to my post, “Gingrich Adviser Urges States to Implement ObamaCare,” in which I responded to David Merritt’s Daily Caller op-ed calling on states to create ObamaCare’s health insurance Exchanges. According to Gingrich campaign spokesman Joe DeSantis:

Mr. Merritt is still an advisor to Speaker Gingrich, but he was not writing this article as a representative of the campaign. Newt receives advice from a large number of people. That does not mean he always agrees with the advice he is given. In this case of states implementing ObamaCare as a precaution, he explicitly disagrees with Mr. Merritt. He believes states need to resist the implementation of the law because it is a threat to our freedom.

That’s welcome news. There’s probably nothing that would give a bigger boost to the repeal effort than for states to refuse to create health insurance Exchanges.

Now that we’ve got the Heritage Foundation and Newt Gingrich on board, perhaps Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul could emphasize to state officials the importance of not implementing ObamaCare.