Tag: Obamacare

McDonald’s Case Highlights ObamaCare’s Threat to Low-Income Workers’ Health Insurance, Political Freedom

Many employers, such as McDonald’s, provide health benefits that are less comprehensive than most.  They may have an annual claims limit of $10,000 or less.  But if you’re young, healthy, and need to pinch your pennies, that may suit you just fine.  According to Jerry Newman, a SUNY-Buffalo professor who wrote a book about working at McDonald’s, “For those who didn’t have health insurance through their spouse, it was a life saver.”

These are the health plans (and the workers) that are seeing the highest premium increases under ObamaCare.  The Wall Street Journal reports:

Trade groups representing restaurants and retailers say low-wage employers might halt their coverage if the government doesn’t loosen a requirement for “mini-med” plans, which offer limited benefits to some 1.4 million Americans…

McDonald’s, in a memo to federal officials, said “it would be economically prohibitive for our carrier to continue offering” the mini-med plan unless it got an exemption from the requirement to spend 80% to 85% of premiums on benefits…”Having to drop our current mini-med offering would represent a huge disruption to our 29,500 participants,” said McDonald’s memo…

Insurers say dozens of other employers could find themselves in the same situation as McDonald’s. Aetna Inc., one of the largest sellers of mini-med plans, provides the plans to Home Depot Inc., Disney Worldwide Services, CVS Caremark Corp., Staples Inc. and Blockbuster Inc., among others, according to an Aetna client list obtained by the Journal. Aetna also covers AmeriCorps teaching-program sponsors, who are required by law to make health coverage available.

Aetna declined to comment; it has previously indicated that the requirement could hurt its limited benefit plans.

“There is not any issuer of limited benefit coverage that could meet the enhanced MLR standards,” said Neil Trautwein, a vice president at the National Retail Federation, using the abbreviation for medical loss ratio.

Yet again, we have evidence that President Obama’s oft-repeated pledge that “if you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan” should have come with a disclaimer: Offer not valid for low-income workers.

Not to fear, says the Obama administration. According to Bloomberg:

The government may allow some low-cost plans like those offered at McDonald’s, which have limited benefits, to get waivers from the health law’s insurance requirements, according to a Sept. 3 Health and Human Services memo. Those requirements were waived for McDonald’s on Sept. 24, [HHS spokeswoman Jessica] Santillo said.

Sorry, but I don’t find it comforting that ObamaCare gives HHS the power to waive these regulations on a case-by-case basis.  Power corrupts.  We’ve already seen HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius use other powers granted her by ObamaCare to threaten insurers who contradict the party line about the law’s cost.  The waiver power gives her another club to use against insurers and employers who complain about the law or donate to the wrong political campaigns.  (Will Home Depot, Disney, CVS, Staples, or Blockbuster dare to misbehave?)

Any such criticism now triggers an autonomic reflex among administration spokesmen where they regurgitate the lines, “Americans have seen what happens when insurance companies have free rein. The Affordable Care Act ends insurance companies’ worst abuses.”

As if giving bureaucrats free rein to engage in abusive government practices is an improvement.

First Lady Asks Nurses to Engage in Legislative Advocacy with Their Patients

No, seriously.  First Lady Michelle Obama is asking nurses to promote ObamaCare to their patients.

With hundreds of thousands of medical errors occurring each year – a problem that ObamaCare does nothing to address – this is exactly what I want my nurse thinking about as she’s inserting a needle into my arm.

KFF/HRET Survey, Part III: Employers Can’t Shift to Workers a Cost that Workers Already Bear

In a previous post, I promised to address the negative spin that the Kaiser Family Foundation put on its annual Employer Health Benefits Survey, released this month.  I do so in an op-ed that ran today at the Daily Caller.  An excerpt:

The Kaiser Family Foundation recently issued its annual survey of employer-sponsored health benefitsdeclaring: “Family Health Premiums Rise 3 Percent to $13,770 in 2010, But Workers’ Share Jumps 14 Percent as Firms Shift Cost Burden.” That’s half-right — but the other half perpetuates a myth about employee health benefits that stands in the way of real health care reform….

[Y]ou pay the full cost of your health benefits: partly through an explicit $4,000 premium and partly because your wages are $9,770 lower than they otherwise would be.

Kaiser therefore claims the impossible when it says that firms are shifting costs to workers.  Employers cannot shift to workers a cost that workers already bear. Yet this year, as in past years, the Associated PressBloombergCNNKaiser Health NewsThe Los Angeles TimesThe New York TimesNPRThe Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post uncritically repeated the cost-shifting myth.

The bolded sentence is Cannon’s Second Rule of Economic Literacy.  (Click here for the first rule.)

I have also collected a series of excerpts from past Kaiser Family Foundation surveys showing this is a persistent issue.  Here are a few:

1998: “Workers in small firms bear a much larger share of the financial burden for health benefits than employees of larger firms.”

2005: “The average worker paid $2,713 toward premiums for family coverage in 2005 or 26% of the total health premium.”

2007: “Annual Premiums for Family Coverage Now Average $12,106, With Workers Paying $3,281”

The folks at the Kaiser Family Foundation were exceedingly gracious when I approached them to discuss this issue.

Bending the Cost Curve: Ryan’s Roadmap Would Succeed Where ObamaCare Fails

From my oped in today’s Investors Business Daily:

Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) “Roadmap for America’s Future” proposes even tighter limits on Medicare’s growth, leading columnist Bruce Bartlett to opine, “the Medicare actuaries have shown the absurdity of the Ryan plan by denying that Medicare cuts already enacted into law are even worthy of projecting into the future.”

On the contrary, experience and public choice theory suggest that the Ryan plan has a better shot at reducing future Medicare outlays than past efforts, because the Roadmap would change the lobbying game that fuels Medicare’s growth.

For more on Ryan’s Roadmap, click here.  For more on Medicare, read David Hyman’s Medicare Meets Mephistopheles.  For more on public choice economics, click here.

ObamaCare: Never Supported by a Majority, Now 10 Points behind with Likely Voters

With the addition of a poll by George Washington University and Politico – completed the day before ObamaCare started sending health insurance premiums higher, making coverage less accessible for children, and destroying health insurance innovations – Pollster.com shows that among likely voters, ObamaCare now suffers a 10-point popularity gap:

(As I’ve noted before, Pollster.com’s local-regression trend estimate will head off in a direction different from public opinion if the latest poll is a fluke.  But these trajectories are consistent with Pollster.com’s trend estimates for polls surveying registered voters and all adults, which incorporate many more data points.)

Also worth noting: ObamaCare has never enjoyed the support of a majority of likely voters or even all adults.  For every poll that put ObamaCare above 50 percent – there have been only a few, and the highest showed only 53-percent support – many more polls clocked support at well below 50 percent.  Thus Pollster.com’s trend estimate shows public support for ObamaCare peaked among all adults at 47 percent just after Obama’s inauguration, and has fallen to just below 40 percent today.  Among likely voters (above), the high water mark was 45 percent in June, 2009, and now stands at just over 42 percent.

If Pollster.com does a fair job of smoothing out the quirkiness of various polls, that means ObamaCare has never enjoyed the support of a majority of Americans.

Is It ‘Weird’ for Congress to Consider the Constitutionality of Legislation Before Voting on It?

Slate columnist Dahlia Lithwick seems to think so (h/t David Bernstein).  So I’m not accused of taking Lithwick’s words out of context, here’s the relevant passage, discussing Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell (R-DE):

O’Donnell explained that “when I go to Washington, D.C., the litmus test by which I cast my vote for every piece of legislation that comes across my desk will be whether or not it is constitutional.” How weird is that, I thought. Isn’t it a court’s job to determine whether or not something is, in fact, constitutional? And isn’t that sort of provided for in, well, the Constitution? In 2003, O’Donnell said of the Supreme Court that “it’s kind of like we have the nine people sitting there in Washington who have a constitutional monarchy and that is an abuse of the system.” So I do wonder a little whether she’s claiming that her view of what’s constitutional trumps theirs. Not a lot of space for checks and balances in that reading.

Apparently Lithwick doesn’t know that senators and congressmen (and a whole host of other officials – including federal law clerks of the kind both she and I were at some point) swear an oath to uphold the Constitution.  It seems that it would be hard to fulfill that oath if you don’t in good faith and to the best of your ability consider the constitutional dimension of whatever you’re voting on.  Yes of course not all congressmen are lawyers – though it’s unclear whether being one and even chairing the judiciary committee helps one think through constitutional issues – but you shouldn’t have to be a constitutional scholar to see that, for example, Congress cannot force everyone to eat three servings of fruits and vegetables daily.  (Though now-Justice Elena Kagan refused to say that.)

Indeed, the Constitution is silent as to which branch of government is to review the constitutionality of legislation.  Moreover, as we know from the foundational case of Marbury v. Madison, the judiciary’s role in doing so is merely (but rightly) implied, not explicit, in constitutional text.  There is no “weirdness” in courts exercising their constitutional powers by ruling on constitutional issues brought before them in lawsuits even as the other branches make constitutionality determinations in carrying out their own duties.  After all, isn’t a president who does something he consciously knows is beyond his lawfully vested Article II authority violating his own oath of office and potentially subjecting himself to impeachment for that very reason?

Yes, long gone, unfortunately, are the days when congressional debates focused on the constitutionality of proposed bills rather than their desirability, but shouldn’t Congress at least pay lip service to the idea that it needs a constitutional warrant for everything it does?

In any event, I’ll be on a panel with Dahlia this Thursday at the Missouri Bar Association’s annual meeting and will raise this issue to her.  (May also take on her bizarre accusation that Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley was appealing sub rosa to “Christian Reconstructionists” in asking at Kagan’s confirmation hearings whether the right to keep and bear arms pre-existed the Constitution – see David Bernstein’s simple rebuttal at the Volokh Conspiracy.)

‘Democrats Guess Wrong on Health Care’

That’s the headline of an article posted this week in Politico:

Rarely have so many political strategists been so wrong about something so big.

But when it comes to the health care bill, everyone from former President Bill Clinton on down whiffed on some of the more significant predictions.

Democrats would run aggressively on the legislation? Nope. Voters would forget about the sausage-making aspects of the legislative process? Doesn’t seem that way, as the process contributed to the sense that the bill was deeply flawed.

And Clinton’s own promise to jittery Democrats that their poll numbers would skyrocket after the bill finally passed also didn’t pan out, as the party is fighting for its life in the midterms.

What can explain the miscalculation?  Maybe religious fervor?