Tag: Obamacare

A Hidden Cost of ObamaCare

Today at the Cato Institute, Duke University Prof. Chris Conover presented his estimates of the economic losses that will be created by the taxes necessary to fund ObamaCare.  This chart is taken from his presentation:

The Excess Burden of ObamaCare

Here’s Conover’s full presentation (with comments by former Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Holtz-Eakin), as well as his Cato Policy Analysis, and his op-ed.

Hiding the Cost of Government Leads to Bigger Government

At the Daily Caller, Duke University Prof. Chris Conover writes:

There you are, about to sign the papers, when the car salesman offers to throw in a $1,000 options package. He knows those options will cost you a further $440 by reducing the performance of your new car’s engine, but he doesn’t tell you that.

Sounds sleazy, right? Congress does it every day.

Politicians love to rail against car dealers and mortgage lenders who surprise consumers with hidden costs. Yet Congress hides from voters a huge part of the cost of government: the hidden costs of taxes, which include lost income and jobs. Failing to account for these costs creates a bias in favor of bigger government and a less efficient tax code.

Read the rest of Conover’s oped here, and his Cato study here.

Cato Study: ObamaCare’s Hidden $550 Billion Cost

In a study released today by the Cato Institute, Duke University professor Chris Conover estimates how much ObamaCare and related provisions will reduce economic output:

The Congressional Budget Office has projected the 10-year, on-budget cost of [The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. ObamaCare] will be just over $1 trillion. This paper estimates PPACA will impose an additional, hidden cost of $157 billion to $494 billion in the form of reduced economic output. Related provisions (such as the so-called “doc fix”) could drive the economic losses to $550 billion, or more than half of the bill’s official cost estimates.
Conover will present his paper at a Cato policy forum at 10 a.m. today.  Click here to watch online.

The New York Times Undermines its Narrative

The New York Times has an odd story today on campaign finance on its front page. The story argues that organizations which do not have to identify their donors are sponsoring ads that criticize candidates for office. Complaints about secrecy notwithstanding, the third paragraph of the story discloses one of the major contributors to a group and reveals his putative interests in becoming involved. It also goes into great detail about the donor, his political associates, and even meetings his associates attended and what decisions were made therein. Later parts of the story recount the already disclosed names of supporters of Karl Rove’s efforts in this cycle. True, the story does not reveal everything the reporters believe should be disclosed about donors. But the groups and their donors are hardly secret given what is revealed in the story itself.

The story also cannot get its story straight. The Times’ reporters evidently wanted to fit what they have found into a standard, “special interest” template: the organization in question - the American Future Fund - as a front for energy interests. The story also says the group has sponsored ads on general themes like too much spending,  Obamacare, and another stimulus. But the reporters are determined to see “suggestions of an energy-related agenda,” their own reporting notwithstanding. This forcing of facts into a template comes along with a recognition that the politics of energy and ethanol have become more complicated making it difficult to say what interests are actually being advanced in the American Future Fund effort.

So the story discloses, while decrying secrecy, and both asserts and denies the domination of special interests. In the end, the story holds fast to a simple, conventional theme which is then undermined by its reporting. We should admire, I guess, that the Times’ reporters were willing to undermine their own narrative. But why not just embrace complexity? They are writing the first, not the final, draft of history.

The story also reports that donors desire anonymity because they wish to avoid taking sides in political disputes in public. The story does not say why they desire to avoid taking sides. Perhaps a quick call to the Koch family or George Soros might have provided an answer to that question.

Pelosi Had to Pass ObamaCare So She Could Find out What’s In It

Bloomberg’s Caroline Baum has a great column on ObamaCare.  It leads off with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s oft-repeated remark, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.

Truer words were never spoken.  Heck, ObamaCare gives HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius so much arbitrary power to reshape the health care sector that Congress had to pass the law so that Pelosi could find out what is in it.

Baum explains why such discretionary power is dangerous:

Discretion may be the better part of valor, but it’s not something businesses can rely on for planning purposes. Corporations are already hunkered down because of (take your pick) weak demand, hurt feelings as a result of presidential persecution, or uncertainty over future health-care costs and tax rates. It won’t help business confidence to learn the HHS secretary can make and break rules on a case-by-case basis.

“The secretary can decide what you have to purchase, but if you are in a presidential swing state, the secretary has the authority to undo everything she just did,” Cannon says.

Wait, how’d that last sentence get in there?  Anyway, read the whole thing.

Michigan Court Wrong on Obamacare, Even Exceeds Its Own Powers

The passage of Obamacare heralded an important discussion on whether the Constitution places any effective limits on federal power and, in particular, where Congress gets the constitutional warrant to require every person to enter the private marketplace and buy a particular good or service.  This is a healthy discussion to have, including in the courts.  

Today’s ruling in Michigan, dismissing the Thomas More Law Center’s challenge to the individual mandate, while disappointing to those of us who believe that the government lacks the power to commandeer people to engage in transactions – “economic mandates,” as it were – is but one of many legal decisions we can expect on the way to the Supreme Court’s ultimate resolution of this important issue.  Indeed, this summer we saw a ruling by a federal judge in Virginia allowing that state’s legal challenge to the individual mandate and other aspects of the health care legislation to proceed.  And last month, a federal judge in Florida heard arguments in a similar lawsuit brought by 20 other states – a decision on which we can expect later this fall.  Other serious cases continue in Arizona, Missouri, Ohio, the District of Columbia, and elsewhere.

Perhaps most notable about the Michigan opinion, however, is the scant space spent on the serious Commerce Clause arguments on which hundreds of pages have been filed in these cases by top lawyers, legal experts, and academics (including Cato – yes, I’m heavily vested in this litigation).  After granting that the plaintiffs had standing and that the case was ripe for adjudication, and rejecting the government’s odd Anti-Injunction Act defense, Judge Steeh takes only seven and a half pages to reject the plaintiffs’ arguments – half of which is spent reciting existing doctrine.  It is as if the court merely issued a “placeholder” opinion, pending a “real” resolution on appeal.

And the novel conclusion we gain from this curt disposition is that Congress can now regulate people’s “economic decisions,” as well as do anything that is part of a “broader regulatory scheme.”  If the Supreme Court eventually upholds the kind of reasoning Judge Steeh used here, nobody would ever be able to claim plausibly that the Constitution limits federal power.  Finding the individual mandate constitutional would be the first interpretation of the Commerce Clause to permit the regulation of inactivity – requiring an individual to engage in economic activity. 

The federal government would then have wide authority to require Americans engage in activities of its choosing, from eating spinach and joining gyms (in the health care realm) to buying GM cars.  Or, under Judge Steeh’s “economic decisions” theory, Congress could tell people what to study in school or what job to take.  That may be the unfortunate state of the law in a few years – once the Supreme Court has weighed in, and I doubt it would ever go so far in any event – but it is not up to district courts to extend constitutional doctrine on their own.