Tag: Obamacare

Constitution, Schmonstitution — The Law Is What I Say It Is

The health care debate has illuminated how little regard many members of Congress have for the U.S. Constitution.

First, Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) said, “There ain’t no rules here… When the deal goes down … we make ‘em up as we go along.

Then, House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers (D-MI) claimed that the Constitution’s non-existent “Good and Welfare clause” grants Congress the power to compel Americans to purchase health insurance.

Now, Rep. Phil Hare (D-IL) admits he doesn’t really care whether the Constitution grants Congress that power:

Off-camera: Where in the Constitution…

Rep. Hare: I don’t worry about the Constitution on this, to be honest.

Off-camera: [Laughter.] Jackpot, brother.

Rep. Hare: What I care more about — I care more about the people that are dying every day that don’t have health insurance.

Off-camera: You care more about that than the U.S. Constitution that you swore to uphold!

Rep. Hare: I believe that it says we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Now you tell me…

Off-camera: That’s the Declaration of Independence.

Rep. Hare: It doesn’t matter to me. Either one…

[Lots of childish sniping.]

Off-camera: Where in the Constitution does it give you the authority to…

Rep. Hare: I don’t know.  I don’t know.

Off-camera: That’s what I thought.

Of course, that doesn’t really capture how annoying both the congressman and his interrogators are.  So here’s the video:

Rep. Hare is channeling Chicken Little: because the sky is falling, we don’t have time to worry about the Constitution’s restraints on congressional power.  We all know how that story ends.  Indeed, true to the fable, there’s no convincing evidence that Rep. Hare’s solution would save the lives he thinks it would save, and it could even cost lives in the long run.  (Fun fact: Wikipedia reports that in early versions of the fable, Chicken Little is actually a hare.)

In addition to brushing up on their Chicken Little, Rep. Hare and his colleagues might want to rent A Man for All Seasons to remind themselves why it’s important to pay attention to what the law actually says:

Sir Thomas More: What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ‘round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!

Will Debate Constitutionality of Obamacare Anytime, Anywhere

Zaid Jilani at the Center for American Progress put up a blog post titled, “College debate organizers unable to find any law professors to argue health reform is unconstitutional.” Indeed, it seems that none of the four panelists at the University of Washington Law School event had any issues with Obamacare.

Maybe the UW organizers, who couldn’t find anyone with the opposing view, are talking to the same folks who told John Conyers about the “Good and Welfare Clause.” Because, as I said before, it’s not that hard to find constitutional scholars who have problems with this legislation.

OK, look, I’ll make it easier:  I hereby announce that I am willing to travel anywhere at anytime to debate the constitutionality of Obamacare. Whoever sets up the debate has to pay my travel expenses, but that’s it.  Any takers?

ObamaCare: Still a Bad Deal for Young Adults

The Associated Press reports that young adults will face higher premiums under ObamaCare:

Beginning in 2014, most Americans will be required to buy insurance or pay a tax penalty. That’s when premiums for young adults seeking coverage on the individual market would likely climb by 17 percent on average, or roughly $42 a month, according to an analysis of the plan conducted for The Associated Press. The analysis did not factor in tax credits to help offset the increase.

The higher costs will pinch many people in their 20s and early 30s who are struggling to start or advance their careers with the highest unemployment rate in 26 years.

The article cited additional studies estimating premiums increases young adults as high as 50 percent. That was essentially the message of my recent Cato briefing paper, “ObamaCare: A Bad Deal for Young Adults.”

Supporters claim the new law provides subsidies that would help people afford the higher premiums. As I write in my paper, however:

The money for those subsidies has to come from somewhere, though. Presumably, some of it would come from young adults themselves in the form of higher taxes or the tax penalties imposed on those who do not purchase insurance…So the presence of subsidies does not necessarily mean that young adults would come out winners. Ironically, all the complexity may actually help the legislation pass Congress precisely because it obscures whom the legislation would tax.

Supporters also claim that although the higher premiums might be actuarially unfair for people who are young and healthy today, those people will eventually be old and unhealthy. Over the course of a lifetime, they reason, such policies would be closer to actuarially fair.

The problem is that we’ve heard this line before. Inter-generational redistribution is fundamentally unfair to the young because it creates a situation where the old, who vote, have incentives to ratchet up benefits – and to ratchet up taxes on the young, who don’t vote. Social Security collects from the young and gives to the old, and is clearly a net tax on the young. As Jonathan Gruber reports, the young have very little confidence – deservedly so – in Social Security’s implicit promises. Experience shows that whatever new taxes ObamaCare imposes on the young will grow over time.

Regardless, most young uninsured people already obtain insurance as they get older. As I report in my paper, 30.4 percent of those age 20-29 were uninsured in 2008 (including 33.8 percent of 23-year-olds), but only 13.4 percent of those aged 50-64 years were uninsured. So a significant number of uninsured young adults naturally transition into insured older adults. The main effect of the new law will be to take young adults who think health insurance is a bad deal at today’s prices and force them to health insurance at even higher prices.

ObamaCare’s New Entitlement Spending “Sows the Seeds” of a Budget Crisis

From Robert J. Samuelson’s column in today’s Washington Post:

When historians recount the momentous events of recent weeks, they will note a curious coincidence. On March 15, Moody’s Investors Service – the bond rating agency – published a paper warning that the exploding U.S. government debt could cause a downgrade of Treasury bonds. Just six days later, the House of Representatives passed President Obama’s health-care legislation costing $900 billion or so over a decade and worsening an already-bleak budget outlook.

Should the United States someday suffer a budget crisis, it will be hard not to conclude that Obama and his allies sowed the seeds, because they ignored conspicuous warnings. A further irony will not escape historians. For two years, Obama and members of Congress have angrily blamed the shortsightedness and selfishness of bankers and rating agencies for causing the recent financial crisis. The president and his supporters, historians will note, were equally shortsighted and self-centered – though their quest was for political glory, not financial gain.

I hope Samuelson is wrong, but it’s probably a good idea to behave as if he’s right, and repeal ObamaCare’s new entitlement spending.

Medicare Fraud: 1, Anti-Fraud Measures: 0

As the nation contemplates the new health care entitlements that Congress and President Obama just created, it is worth noting an article in today’s Washington Post, which reports on the performance of past efforts to eliminate fraud in another health care entitlement:

More than a decade ago, Congress set out to squeeze the fraud out of Medicare billing at nursing homes, requiring more precise justifications for costs. It created new “ultra-high” billing categories intended to be used for only 5 percent of the patients needing highly specialized care and rehabilitation.

But within a few years, nursing homes flooded the ultra-high categories with patients, contributing to $542 million a year in potential overpayments, federal analysts found.

Since then, the numbers in the ultra-high categories have quadrupled, and the amount of waste and abuse could reach billions of dollars a year…

The article ends with the ominous implication that eliminating fraud in entitlement programs like Medicare will ultimately require government agencies to decide whether certain services are medically necessary.

Death panels, anyone?

Topics:

Fidel Castro Endorses ObamaCare

As Dave Barry would say, I swear I am not making this up.

Yesterday, the Associated Press reported that the Western Hemisphere’s last unreconstructed communist dictator endorsed President Obama’s new health care law:

HAVANA (AP) — It perhaps was not the endorsement President Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress were looking for.

Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro on Thursday declared passage of American health care reform “a miracle” and a major victory for Obama’s presidency, but couldn’t help chide the United States for taking so long to enact what communist Cuba achieved decades ago.

“We consider health reform to have been an important battle and a success of his (Obama’s) government,” Castro wrote in an essay published in state media, adding that it would strengthen the president’s hand against lobbyists and “mercenaries.”…

“It is really incredible that 234 years after the Declaration of Independence … the government of that country has approved medical attention for the majority of its citizens, something that Cuba was able to do half a century ago,” Castro wrote…

Cuba provides free health care and education to all its citizens, and heavily subsidizes food, housing, utilities and transportation, policies that have earned it global praise. The government has warned that some of those benefits are no longer sustainable given Cuba’s ever-struggling economy, though it has so far not made major changes.

In recent speeches, Raul Castro has singled out medicine as an area where the government needs to be spending less, but he has not elaborated.

I’m sure the Obama administration and its echo chamber will nonetheless continue to claim that this is not socialized medicine.

Is the Health Care Lawsuit For Real?

The Hill asked me the following question:

Thirteen state attorneys general have filled a lawsuit claiming that the new healthcare reforms are unconstitutional.  Is this a real legal challenge or a political stunt?

Here’s my response:

The challenge is very real—and necessary—but we are in uncharted territory here so it’s difficult to predict how courts will react.
 
The strongest and most important legal argument attacks the constitutionality of the individual mandate to buy a certain approved health insurance plan. Never before has the federal government—or any other—tried to force Americans to buy a particular good or service. Never before has it said that every man, woman, and child alive has to purchase a particular product, on penalty of civil or criminal sanction or forfeiture. And never before have courts had to consider such a breathtaking assertion of raw power – not even during the height of the New Deal, when the Supreme Court ratified Congress’ regulation of what people grew in their backyards on the awkward theory that such behavior affected interstate commerce.
 
The individual health care mandate is an even greater expansion of congressional power under the Commerce Clause. And it cannot be justified under the Necessary and Proper or General Welfare Clauses either, because these provisions guide the exercise of Congress’ enumerated powers without adding to them. In short, if the challenges to this health care “reform” fail, nobody will ever be able to claim plausibly that the Constitution limits federal power.

You can read here the responses of other pundits – including several non-lawyers, curiously.