Tag: Obamacare

More Supreme Court Review on the Road

In case any of you are regretting not having been able to attend any of my September-October speaking events, here’s my public schedule for November-December (not counting a spirited Obamacare debate against Columbia’s Gillian Metzger last night at the University of Maryland Law School in Baltimore) (events sponsored by the Federalist Society asterisked):

  • Nov. 8 at noon – “Oh, That Rent-Seeking Mickey Mouse: Intellectual Property and Public Choice Theory” – Texas-Wesleyan (Fort Worth) Law School*
  • Nov. 9 at noon – Debate, “The Arizona Immigration Law: Constitutional?  Good Policy?” – St. Mary’s University (San Antonio) Law School*
  • Nov. 10 at noon – Debate on the Use of Foreign Law in Constitutional Intepretation – Florida International University (Miami) Law School*
  • Nov.11 at noon – “How I Got My Green Card or Why the Immigration System Is the Worst Part of the U.S. Government (and How to Reform It)” – St. Thomas University (Miami) Law School*
  • Nov.12 at 9:45am – Panel as part of all-day law review symposium, “Cure, Botch or Opiate?  Law, Politics, & the Constitutionality of The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” – Florida International University Law School
  • Nov. 15 at noon – Constitutionality of Obamacare – University of Alabama Law School*
  • Nov. 16 at 11:30am – Panel, “Obamacare: Is it Constitutional?” Cumberland University (Birmingham) Law School*
  • Nov. 17 at noon - Debate on the Arizona Scholarship Tax Credit Case – Catholic University (Washington, DC) Law School
  • Nov. 22 at noon – Debate, “The Health Care Reform Act: What It Means for the Market, the Constitution, and You,” University of Michigan Law School*
  • Nov. 22 at 4pm – “The Sweet Mystery of Anthony Kennedy,” Detroit-Mercy Law School*
  • Nov. 23 at noon – “The Chrysler Bailout: Subverting the Constitution, Bankruptcy Law, and Good Sense,” Thomas M. Cooley Law School (Auburn Hills, MI)*
  • Dec. 1 at 10am – Panel, “Everything You Wanted to Know About Health Reform, But Were Afraid to Ask,” American Legislative Exchange Council’s 2010 States and Nation Policy Summit (Washington, DC).
  • Dec. 4 at 8:30am – Debate, “Point\Counterpoint: Diagnosing the Constitutionality of Federal Health Care Reforms,” Council of State Governments National Conference, Providence.  

As always, if you attend any of these events, please do come up and introduce yourself.

Wishful Thinking about ObamaCare Investigations

NPR found two Republicans who caution House Republicans that their efforts to investigate ObamaCare could “backfire.”

But all those hearings could also have the opposite effect — giving the administration a chance to make its case in favor of the law, a case that often got drowned out during the election campaign.

“The next round of this, while there will continue to be the broad sloganeering on both sides, will presumably get a little bit more into the detail,” says Martin Corry, a health care lobbyist and former official at the Department of Health and Human Services during the Bush administration. “So if you’re a family with a 22-year-old still in college, you may not want to see that provision [that lets grown children stay on their parents’ health plans] repealed.”

… Former Republican Sen. Dave Durenberger of Minnesota says he thinks the Democratic-led Senate could try to dampen the House repeal efforts by holding a series of hearings of its own.

Let me see if I understand.  If House Republicans hold hearings, it will be a boon to ObamaCare.   Even though House and Senate Democrats stoutly refused to hold such hearings.  If House Republicans hold hearings, sloganeering will give way to detail.  And if House Republicans hold hearings, ObamaCare supporters will finally be able to get their message out — something they were unable to do while they controlled both chambers of Congress and the executive branch.

ObamaCare Takes a Shellacking

It wasn’t just the party of ObamaCare or its champion that took a “shellacking” at the polls yesterday.  The law took a shellacking as well.  One pollster reports:

This election was a clear signal that voters do not want President Obama’s health care plan.  Nearly half (45%) of voters say their vote was a message to oppose the President’s plan….

Arizona and Oklahoma passed constitutional amendments designed to block ObamaCare’s individual mandate.  Many new governors either plan to join the 22 states already challenging ObamaCare in court, or to block its implementation in other ways.  Congressional Republicans appear determined to use every tool in their arsenal to repeal it.

President Obama is striking a conciliatory note, saying he is open to “tweaks:”

If the Republicans have ideas for how to improve our healthcare system, if they want to suggest modifications that would deliver faster, more effective reform… I am happy to consider some of those ideas.

There is room to doubt his sincerity.  The Washington Post has reported that when President Obama begins a sentence with, Let me be clear, it is “a signal that what follows will be anything but.”  Obama has likewise claimed open-mindedness and flexibility when his behavior exhibited the opposite qualities.  (Remember how last year’s White House summit on health care was all about gathering “the best ideas.”)

Yet with a firm conviction that facts and science and argument still matter, I resubmit to President Obama this Cato Policy Analysis: Yes, Mr. President: A Free Market Can Fix Health Care.  In fact, a free market is the only thing that will.  But a reasonably free market is impossible with ObamaCare still on the books.

I doubt the president will read it.  But Republicans should.  They seem pretty solid on Repeal.  They’re weaker on Replace.

NPR Story Was Hardly Biased, but the Headline?

Today’s NPR story, “Health Law Hardly At Fault For Rising Premiums,” was much fairer than its headline (and the sub-heads, if that’s what we call them).   ObamaCare is “hardly at fault for rising premiums?”  Really?  The story quotes an insurance-industry flack who well establishes what the Obama administration’s own regulations confirm: ObamaCare will be a major driver of premium increases for some health plans.  A sub-head calls such claims “misinformation.”  Oh?  The article does more to bolster those claims than the administration’s flack does to knock them down.  A more accurate headline would have been, “Health Law at Fault for Rising Premiums? In Some Cases, Yes.”

One wonders whether, in some posh Versailles salon, there’s an editor who already knows what the headline should be – never mind what the article says.

Boehner Endorses More Medicare Spending: Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss?

While flipping through the radio on my way to pick my son up from school yesterday afternoon, I was dumbfounded to hear Congressman John Boehner talk about repealing Obama’s Medicare cuts on Sean Hannity’s show.

I wasn’t shocked that Boehner was referring to non-existent cuts (Medicare spending is projected to jump from $519 billion in 2010 to $677 billion in 2015 according to the Congressional Budget Office). I’ve been dealing with Washington’s dishonest definition of “spending cuts” for decades, so I’m hardly fazed by that type of routine inaccuracy.

But I was amazed that the presumptive future Speaker of the House went on a supposedly conservative talk radio show and said that increasing Medicare spending would be on the agenda of a GOP-controlled Congress. (I wondered if I somehow misinterpreted what was being said, but David Frum heard the same thing)

To be fair, Boehner also said that he wanted to repeal ObamaCare, so it would be unfair to claim that the interview was all Bush-style, big-government conservatism. But it is not a positive sign that Boehner is talking about more spending before he’s even had a chance to pick out the drapes for his new office.

Bootleggers & Baptists, Sugary Soda Edition

Here’s a poor, unsuccessful letter that impressed the relevant New York Times reporters, but not their editorial overlords:

It may seem counter-intuitive that bleeding-heart anti-hunger groups and “Big Food and Big Beverage” would ally to oppose Mayor Bloomberg’s request to prevent New Yorkers from using food stamps to purchase sugary sodas [“Unlikely Allies in Food Stamp Debate,” October 16].  Yet the “bootleggers and Baptists” theory of regulation explains that this “strange bedfellows” phenomenon is actually the norm, rather than the exception.

Most laws have two types of supporters: the true believers and those who benefit financially.  Baptists don’t want you drinking on the Lord ’s Day, for example, while bootleggers profit from the above-market prices that Blue Laws enable them to charge on Sundays.  Consequently, both groups support politicians who support Blue Laws.

Baptists-and-bootleggers coalitions underlie almost all government activities. Defense spending: (neo)conservatives and defense contractors.  President Obama’s new health care law: the political left and the health care and insurance industries. Ethanol subsidies: environmentalists and agribusiness. Education: egalitarians and teachers’ unions. The list goes on.

It’s easier to illustrate the theory (and sexier) when the bootleggers are non-believers who cynically manipulate government solely for their own gain.  Yet one can be both a Baptist and a bootlegger. The Coca-Cola Company may sincerely believe that society benefits when the government subsidizes sugary sodas for poor people.  Even so, a bootlegger-cum-Baptist can still rip off taxpayers.

This morning, NPR reported on another bootleggers-and-Baptists coalition: anti-immigration zealots and the prison industry.