Tag: Obamacare

Federal Judge Denies Obama Administration’s Motion to Dismiss Virginia’s ObamaCare Lawsuit

From The Los Angeles Times:

RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Virginia’s lawsuit challenging the Obama administration’s health care reform law has cleared its first legal hurdle.

U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson on Monday denied the Justice Department’s request to dismiss the lawsuit.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli claims that Congress does not have the authority under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause to require citizens to buy health insurance or pay a penalty.

The Virginia General Assembly passed legislation this year exempting state residents from the coverage mandate.

More than a dozen other state attorneys general have filed a separate lawsuit in Florida challenging the federal law, but Virginia’s lawsuit is the first to go before a judge.

Matlock’s Medicare Pitch Ruled Out of Order

FactCheck.org says that in an ad purchased with your tax dollars, actor Andy Griffith (a.k.a., the sheriff of Mayberry and Matlock) used a “weasel word” to mislead Medicare enrollees about how ObamaCare will affect them:

Griffith tells his fellow senior citizens, “like always, we’ll have our guaranteed [Medicare] benefits.” But the truth is that the new law is guaranteed to result in benefit cuts for one class of Medicare beneficiaries — those in private Medicare Advantage plans…

[T]he term “guaranteed” is a weasel word — a qualifier that sucks the meaning out of a phrase in the way that weasels supposedly suck the contents out of an egg. It may sound to the casual listener as though this ad is saying that the benefits of all Medicare recipients are guaranteed to stay the same — and that may well be the way the ad’s sponsors wish listeners to hear it. But what the administration is really saying is that only those benefits that are guaranteed in law will remain the same.

FactCheck.org neglects to mention that ObamaCare will weaken the guarantee behind those “guaranteed” benefits, too.  Medicare’s chief actuary Richard Foster notes that ObamaCare ratchets down Medicare’s price controls, which will “possibly jeopardiz[e] access to care for beneficiaries.”  That’s not to say that the old price-control scheme is any better than the new one.  It just means that the Obama administration is being even less honest and more weaselly than FactCheck.org says.

And they’re dragging Matlock down with them.

With Tax Increases Looming, CBO Does About-Face and Frets about Deficits and Debt

Like the swallows returning to Capistrano, the Congressional Budget Office follows a predictable pattern of endorsing policies that result in bigger government. During the debate about the so-called stimulus, for instance, CBO said more spending and higher deficits would be good for the economy. It then followed up that analysis by claiming that the faux stimulus worked even though millions of jobs were lost. Then, during the Obamacare debate, CBO actually claimed that a giant new entitlement program would reduce deficits.

Now that tax increases are the main topic (because of the looming expiration of the 2001 and 2003 tax bills), CBO has done a 180-degree turn and has published a document discussing the negative consequences of too much deficits and debt. A snippet:

[P]ersistent deficits and continually mounting debt would have several negative economic consequences for the United States. Some of those consequences would arise gradually: A growing portion of people’s savings would go to purchase government debt rather than toward investments in productive capital goods such as factories and computers; that “crowding out” of investment would lead to lower output and incomes than would otherwise occur.

…[A] growing level of federal debt would also increase the probability of a sudden fiscal crisis, during which investors would lose confidence in the government’s ability to manage its budget, and the government would thereby lose its ability to borrow at affordable rates. …If the United States encountered a fiscal crisis, the abrupt rise in interest rates would reflect investors’ fears that the government would renege on the terms of its existing debt or that it would increase the supply of money to finance its activities or pay creditors and thereby boost inflation.

At some point, even Republicans should be smart enough to figure out that this game is rigged. Then again, the GOP controlled Congress for a dozen years and failed to reform either CBO or its counterpart on the revenue side, the Joint Committee on Taxation (which is infamous for its assumption that tax policy has no impact on overall economic performance).

Obamacare Complexity vs Free Market Simplicity

Free markets are characterized by voluntary exchange between buyers and sellers. Mapping that relationship is absurdly simply, as this image indicates.

Indeed, the only reason I even bothered to include that image was for purposes of comparison. Here is a new flowchart prepared for the Joint Economic Committee showing the healthcare system under Obamacare.

It’s worth noting, by the way, that the system already was a disaster even before Obamacare was enacted. In the health care sector, free markets are only allowed to operate in very rare cases, such as cosmetic surgery, laser eye surgery, and (for better or worse) abortion. The rest of the sector was heavily distorted by government intervention. Obamacare simply makes a bad situation worse.

ObamaCare Remains Unpopular, or Round Two of My Exchange with Maggie Mahar

Maggie Mahar responds to my response to her critique of Michael Tanner’s claim that ObamaCare is deeply unpopular.  Mahar’s alternative narrative, espoused by many on the Left, is that “the more voters learn more about the reform legislation, the more they seem to like it.”

Mahar shows that her narrative works if you begin looking for a trend at the high-water mark of opposition, if you look at a few select polls, if you look at not-so-straightforward poll questions, if you interpret simultaneous declines in both support and opposition as growing support, and if you devise a rationale for ignoring the views of those who most oppose ObamaCare.  Which is to say, her narrative doesn’t work.  ObamaCare remains deeply unpopular.

Mahar claims that support for repealing ObamaCare has been trending downward since reaching its high water mark of 63 percent on May 22, as measured by the polling firm Rasmussen Reports. This was shrewd; if you’re going to look for a downward trend, the high water mark is an excellent place to start. But it doesn’t paint an accurate picture of what’s been happening with public support for repeal. Starting on the enactment date, as I wrote before, “Rasmussen finds opposition to repeal hovering between 32-42 percent, and support for repeal hovering between 52-63 percent, with no clear trend on either side.” No clear trend, and a majority consistently supports repeal.  Check out Rasmussen’s data and see for yourself.

Next, Mahar selects a few polls that do support her narrative (e.g., Gallup, NBC/Wall Street Journal, Kaiser Family Foundation).  For example, in her first post, Mahar cites an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll from June that suggests voters would prefer a Democratic congressional candidate who didn’t want to repeal ObamaCare over a Republican who did. Aside from the results being barely statistically significant, the question she cites introduces confounding factors such as party affiliation. When that same poll asked a more straightforward question, it found that 47 percent of respondents would be enthusiastic about or comfortable with a candidate’s desire to repeal ObamaCare, compared to 40 percent who would have reservations or be uncomfortable.

Moreover, selecting just a few polls probably paints a less accurate picture than looking at something like Pollster.com, which aggregates all polls and therefore (presumably) cancels out the quirkiness of individual polls.

The above graph shows that opposition to ObamaCare surged after Obama’s inauguration and surpassed support just as the debate began in earnest in July 2009. (That rising opposition fueled the angry town halls of August 2009.) In other words, from the moment the public began to focus on ObamaCare, they didn’t like what they saw, and opponents have out-numbered its supporters for 12 months now.  (Note: the above graph only includes polls that ask the straightforward support/oppose question. It does not include Rasmussen’s polls showing broad and deep support for repeal, nor the NBC/Wall Street Journal and Kaiser Family Foundation polls Mahar cites, which show weaker support for repeal. It would be interesting to see Pollster.com aggregate the “repeal” polls.)

When Mahar turns her attention to all available polls, she argues, “if you’re looking for a trend, it’s only sensible to begin the day the bill was signed, March 23.” Why?

It was only after the final bill was passed, that people could begin to offer an opinion.

How true that is.  Also: mere voters can hardly be expected to offer an opinion about would-be presidents until after Inauguration Day.

One would think that Mahar would only insult the public’s intelligence, and dismiss the views that a plurality/majority of adults consistently expressed for 9 months, if it would help to bolster her argument.  But it doesn’t.  When we look at the trend in public opinion on ObamaCare since the signing ceremony, we see that opposition and support are declining:

If the trendline showing declining opposition to ObamaCare supports Mahar’s narrative (“the more voters learn…the more they seem to like it”), the trendline showing declining support for ObamaCare supports the opposite narrative (“the more voters learn, the less they like it”).

But recall that Mahar claims that voters are warming to ObamaCare.  When we look only at polls of adults who are registered to vote, there doesn’t appear to be any change since ObamaCare became law:

Looking just at voters also reveals that the opposition leads support by an even wider margin (9.5 percentage points).

(NB: These Pollster.com graphs will update automatically as new polling information becomes available, which may affect the trendlines.  My description of the trends and the numbers I cite are current as of July 26, 2010.  Also, readers using Internet Explorer have reported difficulty seeing the trendlines in user-generated graphs from Pollster.com.)

Finally, Mahar channels Marion Barry, who (in)famously claimed that if you don’t count murders, the crime rate in Washington, D.C., is really quite low.  She cites a poll that “suggests that opposition is largely confined to the one group that already has universal coverage–seniors,” and then invokes Ezra Klein’s rationale for dismissing their opinions:

[S]eniors, of course, aren’t opposed to government-run health care. They love their Medicare, and insofar as they have a policy concern here, it’s that the Affordable Care Act will interfere with the single-payer system they rely on.

It is nonsense to say that ObamaCare is popular if we just ignore the views of people who will suffer.  If ObamaCare weren’t taking the money for its insurance-company bailouts new government spending out of Medicare, it would have to take that money from somewhere else and those people would be angry.  (Actually, since those Medicare cuts probably won’t happen, we’ll get to see that scenario play out.)  Even if ObamaCare were popular among non-seniors, all Mahar and Klein would have established is that massive new government entitlement programs would be popular if we didn’t have to pay for them.

Randy Barnett in the Wall Street Journal: “A Commandeering of the People”

Cato senior fellow Randy Barnett is the subject of the Wall Street Journal’s nearly-full-page Weekend Interview. Randy talks about interpreting the Constitution with “a presumption of liberty,” the subtitle of his book Restoring the Lost Constitution; about the Supreme Court’s expansion of government power from Wickard v. Filburn to Gonzales v. Raich; and especially about the constitutionality of the new health care bill and its individual mandate. Randy wrote an amicus brief with Cato in support of the Virginia attorney general’s challenge to the health care mandate.

“What is the individual mandate?” Mr. Barnett says. “I’ll tell you what the individual mandate, in reality, is. It is a commandeering of the people. . . . Now, is there a rule of law preventing that? No. Why isn’t there a rule of law preventing that? Because it’s never been done before. What’s bothering people about the mandate? This fact. It’s intuitive to them. People don’t even know how to explain it, but there’s something different about this, because it’s a commandeering of the people as a whole. . . . We commandeer people to serve in the military, to serve on juries, and to file a return and pay their taxes. That’s all we commandeer the people to do. This is a new kind of commandeering, and it’s offensive to a lot of people.”

For the full legal argument, read the brief.

Investors: Fear the Process That Gave Us ObamaCare, Not Efforts to Repeal It

Ezra Klein writes:

So long as the political system is working reasonably well, we can get out from even quite a lot of debt. But the more it breaks down — the more the market sees things like the deficit commission rejected by its Republican sponsors in Congress, the more it hears threats to repeal the deficit reduction in health-care reform, the more it seems likely that Democrats will become just as unreasonably obstructionist when they become the minority — the more it has reason to worry.

I doubt that investors worry more when they hear threats to repeal ObamaCare or its Medicare cuts, which few took seriously in the first place. Given that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the non-partisan chief actuary of the Medicare program, and even the International Monetary Fund have all expressed skepticism that those cuts will take effect, I expect investors have already discounted claims that ObamaCare will reduce the deficit.

More generally, the problem is not that the political system is breaking down.  That system is working pretty much the same way it always has and always will: it promotes irresponsibility.  Republicans and Democrats are merely responding to the incentives created by the system in which they operate.  (If they didn’t respond to those incentives, the political system would throw them out and replace them with people who do.)  If investors don’t already understand that, the sooner the better.

This is why responsible people want to take responsibility for our health care, etc., out of the hands of politicians.