What’s hated by unions
has businesses wary
and dropping coverage
like the ‘Skins secondary?
Causing thousands of layoffs
taking it’s toll?
What’s so good for people
that they’re forced to enroll?
What’s a law that’s so good
folks who passed and defended it
see it and got waivers
to be exempted? It’s
like Olestra, at first
it sounded hip
but we quickly found ourselves
dealing with a whole lot of sh…
Unions and businesses both in despair
So to recap, young people,
your hours get cut
and your income goes down
and your premium’s up
and the taxes you pay
with the cash you have left
go to pay for a stupid
video contest, touting
Unions and businesses both in despair
It’s hated by doctors and unions are mad.
Not since Billy Ray Cyrus
has someone made something this bad.
Another excerpt from David Goldhill’s new book, Catastrophic Care: How American Health Care Killed My Father – And How We can Fix It:
Despite the good intentions of its authors, the ACA is less a reform of our health care system than an extension of its current principles to their logical end…
In a system burdened by complexity, bureaucratic explosion, and lack of innovation, the ACA paves the way for even more rules, many of which are merely mandates for future rules and ever more committees and commissions…
The problem with the ACA isn’t that it represents “government takeover of heath care” or “socialism”…The problem with the ACA is that it’s so old-fashioned.
Register now for Cato’s book forum on Catastrophic Care featuring Goldhill, the Brookings Institution’s Kavita Patel, and me. The forum is this Wednesday, September 18, from 12-1:30pm at the Cato Institute. Click here to register. Seats are limited, so register now.
In 1992, after seeing their taxes raised 8 times in 9 years, the people of Arizona overwhelmingly approved Proposition 108, a ballot initiative that amended the state constitution to require tax and fee increases to be passed by a 2/3 vote in each of Arizona’s legislative bodies. Since then, Prop 108’s supermajority requirement has protected Arizona taxpayers from the kind of special-interest-driven tax increases that typically don’t enjoy public support. As a result, Arizona’s tax burden has fallen over the years, to the state’s great economic benefit.
Recently, however, as part of a brazen effort to force through Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, Governor Jan Brewer – who ran for reelection last year as a staunch opponent of Obamacare – sidestepped Prop 108 in a way that threatens to eviscerate its taxpayer protections and otherwise violate Arizona’s stricter-than-normal adherence to the separation of powers.
Because the Medicaid expansion will cost Arizona an untold sum, and did not receive the 2/3 majority required for it to raise the taxes to pay for itself, Brewer employed more creative means to raise Arizonans’ taxes: delegating the taxation authority to a state bureaucracy and calling it an “assessment.” This approach takes advantage of Prop 108’s exception for “fees and assessments that are authorized by statute, but are not prescribed by formula, amount or limit, and are set by a state officer or agency.” Interpreted Brewer’s way, the exception allows the legislature to delegate a taxing power to state agencies that the legislature itself doesn’t have. If read this way, the exception would forevermore swallow the rule and impose an outcome contrary to Prop 108’s stated purpose.
Accordingly, our friends at the Goldwater Institute last week filed suit in state court on behalf of state lawmakers – including Rep. Adam Kwasman, a good friend of mine who’s now the vice-chair of the Arizona House Ways & Means Committee – and their constituents, challenging the new tax as a violation of Arizona’s constitution and the state’s separation of powers. Goldwater argues that the hidden tax violates Prop. 108’s supermajority requirement for new taxes, and that Arizona’s strict separation of powers prohibits the delegation of taxing power to an unaccountable state bureaucracy.
Goldwater is clearly in the right. Prop 108 was adopted for the plain purpose of preventing precisely this type of special interest tax-and-spend behavior – behavior the people of Arizona will be even less able to oppose if state courts determine that a bare legislative majority can delegate taxation power that it doesn’t itself possess. Brewer’s Medicaid expansion, meanwhile, threatens to take the taxing power out of Arizonans’ hands and give it to bureuacrats and the special interests that lobby them.
It will be a shame if Arizona courts permit Brewer’s newfound insistence on enabling Obamacare to effectively neuter a constitutional provision supported by more than 70% of voters. For more commentary on the case, read Josh Blackman.
This blogpost was co-authored by Cato legal associate Julio Colomba.
I have written about the special (and illegal) Obamacare exemption the president has granted Congress.
It turns out, this exemption polls poorly. Opposition is north of 90 percent, unites Obamacare opponents and supporters, and has the potential to oust incumbents members of Congress who accept an special exemption that other Americans don’t get.
You might think that Republican and Democratic party committees would be salivating at the prospect of using this issue to oust incumbents of the other party. At a minimum, you would think that Obamacare opponents (i.e., Republicans) would drive a wedge between the law’s supporters (i.e., Democrats) and the public by forcing supporters to vote on a measure eliminating the exemption. Doing so could elect more new Republicans in 2014 by allowing them attack incumbent Democrats thus: “My opponent voted for Obamacare, and then voted to give himself and his well-paid friends in Congress a special exemption that the people of this state/district don’t get. That’s just wrong.”
Yet it appears the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee have negotiated a truce on this issue. If true, both parties have agreed not to give voice to the will of the people by attacking members of the other party who consent to this special privilege granted to members of Congress. If true, it would confirm what I have written previously: “America has a two-party system. But it’s not Republicans versus Democrats. It’s the ruling class — Republicans and Democrats — against everyone else.”
I can hardly imagine a more powerful argument for allowing unlimited spending by independent groups to advocate the election or defeat of political candidates. That is, I can hardly imagine a more powerful argument against “campaign finance reform.”
On Monday, The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn admitted that President Obama “made a misleading statement about Obamacare rates” during his press conference on Friday. The magazine’s Twitter feed (@tnr) announced:
Whoops! The president (accidentally, we think) told a little #Obamacare lie on Friday.
During his press conference, the president said:
[When it comes to people without access to employer-sponsored coverage,] they’re going to be able to go on a website or call up a call center and sign up for affordable quality health insurance at a significantly cheaper rate than what they can get right now on the individual market. And if even with lower premiums they still can’t afford it, we’re going to be able to provide them with a tax credit to help them buy it. [Emphasis added.]
The problem, Cohn writes, is that:
while some people will pay less than they pay today, some will pay more. They will primarily be young, healthy men who benefited from preferential pricing in the past, were content with coverage that had huge gaps, and are too wealthy to qualify for the law’s tax credits—which are substantial but phase out at higher incomes…
But somebody listening to Obama’s press conference probably wouldn’t grasp that distinction. They’d come away thinking their insurance will be cheaper next year. For some, it won’t be. Obama isn’t doing himself, or the law, any favors by fostering a false expectation.
“I didn’t simply choose to delay this on my own,” President Obama reassured the nation about his unilateral decision to delay Obamacare’s employer mandate. “This was in consultation with businesses all across the country,” he said, as if that made the situation better instead of worse. Obama threw his “consultants” another bone when he decided to delay the reporting requirements the law imposes on employers, also until 2015. The president’s generosity toward large corporations will be financed by the American taxpayer. The Congressional Budget Office projects these delays will cost taxpayers another $3 billion in new government spending and reduce federal revenues by $9 billion, for a total increase in the federal debt of $12 billion. Yet the president fails to show the same concern for individual taxpayers. When the House of Representatives, including dozens of Democrats, voted to extend the same break to individuals by delaying Obamacare’s individual mandate by one year, President Obama threatened to veto that bill. Bizarrely, he also threatened to veto another bill (approved by an even broader bipartisan majority) that would make legal his illegal delay of the employer mandate.
So perhaps we should not be too surprised now that the New York Times reveals yet another delay the president approved at the behest of big business:
In another setback for President Obama’s health care initiative, the administration has delayed until 2015 a significant consumer protection in the law that limits how much people may have to spend on their own health care.
The limit on out-of-pocket costs, including deductibles and co-payments, was not supposed to exceed $6,350 for an individual and $12,700 for a family. But under a little-noticed ruling, federal officials have granted a one-year grace period to some insurers, allowing them to set higher limits, or no limit at all on some costs, in 2014…
[F]ederal officials said that many insurers and employers needed more time to comply because they used separate companies to help administer major medical coverage and drug benefits, with separate limits on out-of-pocket costs…
A senior administration official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said: “We knew this was an important issue. We had to balance the interests of consumers with the concerns of health plan sponsors and carriers, which told us that their computer systems were not set up to aggregate all of a person’s out-of-pocket costs. They asked for more time to comply.”…
Theodore M. Thompson, a vice president of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society, said: “The promise of out-of-pocket limits was one of the main reasons we supported health care reform. So we are disappointed that some plans will be allowed to have multiple out-of-pocket limits in 2014.”
It is a sign of Obamacare’s complexity that the Obama administration felt it needed to issue this delay. It is a further sign of the law’s complexity that this delay was announced in February, yet is only coming to light now.
This work by Cato Institute is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.