Tag: ppaca

Alan Blinder Owes Me $5 for Wasting My Time

In today’s Wall Street Journal, Alan Blinder writes one of the most error-ridden and discourse-debasing op-eds I have ever read. About any topic. Ever.

A sampling:

[O]ur country was founded on the idea that the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable. Access to affordable health care is surely essential to two of these three rights, maybe to all three.

This is absurd. Does Blinder really mean to say that until about a hundred years ago, when modern medicine really began, the lack of access to affordable health care alienated every single human being to walk the Earth from their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

I wish people would think—long and hard—before they write about health care. Especially the smart ones.

Politico: Opponents Are Winning the Debate over ObamaCare ‘Exchanges’

Politico has a great story about how free-market groups are defeating ObamaCare Exchanges at the state level:

Conservatives like John Graham of the Pacific Research Institute have also been touring states with the platform provided by the American Legislative Exchange Council to help kill off state-based exchanges, a key piece of health reform that will help millions of people purchase insurance coverage — often with federal subsidies — starting in 2014.

“Our approach has to be absolute noncollaboration, civil disobedience — well, not civil disobedience but resistance … by whatever means,” said Graham.

Two years into the law’s implementation, conservative emissaries have contributed to impressive stats. Almost all red states are holding off on exchange legislation at least until the Supreme Court decides on the Affordable Care Act, and in most of those states, exchange-building legislation has crawled to a stop.

I have to point out three problems with the story, though. First, the Cato Institute and I are libertarian, not conservative.

Second, the article identifies Cato, ALEC, and AFP as being “funded partly by the Koch brothers.” Even though these groups have no direct or indirect financial interest in this issue, and even though Cato currently receives no funding from the Kochs, and even though Cato is currently fighting a hostile takeover attempt by the Kochs, I guess that’s a fair categorization. What isn’t fair is how the article fails to disclose that Leavitt Partners has a direct financial interest in this issue: Leavitt is getting paid by states to help implement Exchanges. (See “Health Exchanges: A New Gold Mine,” Politico, June 27, 2011.) It would have been nice if the article mentioned that all the moneyed interests – including health insurance carriers and many Chambers of Commerce – are on the pro-Exchange side. But it at least should have mentioned Leavitt’s financial interest.

Third, I’m not sure what basis there is for saying “most legal experts think” the federal government can offer tax credits and subsidies in federal Exchanges. My co-author Jonathan Adler and I have been following that debate closely. Only a handful of scholars have even commented on the issue, and they are fairly evenly split. If I’m unaware of others who have weighed in, I’d like to hear about them.

That’s Not a Limiting Principle, Charles Kolb Edition

Charles Kolb is president of the Committee for Economic Development and was a domestic policy adviser to Bush the Elder. Over at Huffington Post, he articulates why (he thinks) the Constitution’s Commerce Clause empowers Congress to force people to purchase health insurance, but not broccoli. That is to say, he offers (what he thinks is) a limiting principle that (he thinks) would enable the Supreme Court to uphold ObamaCare’s individual mandate, but still leave some constraints on Congress’s ability to force people to buy things. Like broccoli.

Yet Kolb’s proposed limiting principle is no more a limiting principle than Harvard law professor Noah Feldman’s proposed limiting principle, because the two make the same argument. Almost verbatim. So rather than regurgitate my response to Feldman, I’ll just link to it.

Okay, I’ll regurgitate this part:

Like every other so-called limiting principle offered by ObamaCare’s defenders, Feldman’s[/Kolb’s] has no basis in the Constitution or any other law. It is a post hoc rationalization, made by people who are shocked to find themselves before the Supreme Court, defending the constitutionality of their desire to bully others into submission.

Couldn’t resist.

Yes, Ms. Pelosi, We’ve Been Serious the Whole Time

The start of my latest Obamacare op-ed, hot off the pixels:

“Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?”  With those words, Justice Anthony Kennedy sent the legal establishment reeling.

Was the Supreme Court really taking seriously the preposterous claims of the Tea Party-inspired hacks who were suing the federal government?  Was there really a chance that five justices, acting as would-be partisan hacks themselves, would throw out President Obama’s signature achievement?  Could Obamacare, which name everyone is now allowed to use because the administration itself has adopted it, really fall on some technicality about mandating economic activity rather than regulating it when it occurs?

In a word, yes.

Read the whole thing at CNN.com.

Obamacare Argument Post-Mortem

Now that I’ve woken from the first full night’s sleep since the Supreme Court’s three-day Obamacare marathon began, I can share my thoughts on how the argument went, in case you haven’t seen my first and second days’ reports for the Daily Caller:

  1. The Anti-Injunction Act: On an argument day that can best be described as the calm before the storm, it quickly became clear that the Supreme Court would reach the constitutional issues everyone cares about. That is, regardless of how the justices resolve the hyper-technical issue of whether the Anti-Injunction Act is “jurisdictional,” this law – which prevents people from challenging taxes before they’re assessed or collected – does not apply to the Obamacare litigation. There were also hints that the Court was skeptical of the government’s backup merits argument that the individual mandate was justified under the Constitution’s taxing power. Perhaps the only surprising aspect of the hearing was how “cold” the bench was; it’s rare for the justices to allow advocates to speak at length without interruption, but that’s what they generally did today. That’s yet another indication that the Court will get past the AIA appetizer to the constitutional entree.
  2. The individual mandate: From Justice Kennedy’s noting that the government is fundamentally transforming the relationship of the individual to the government, to Chief Justice Roberts’s concern that “all bets are off” if Congress can enact economic mandates, to Justice Alito’s invocation of a hypothetical burial-insurance mandate, to Justice Scalia’s focusing on the “proper” prong of the Necessary and Proper Clause – and grimacing throughout the solicitor general’s argument – it was a good day for those challenging the individual mandate.  Paul Clement and Mike Carvin, who argued for the plaintiffs, did a masterful job on that score, showing again and again the unprecedented and limitless nature of the government’s assertion of federal power.  The solicitor general meanwhile, had a shaky opening and never could quite articulate the limiting principle to the government’s theory that at least four justices (and presumably the silent Justice Thomas) were seeking.  While trying to predict Supreme Court decisions is a fool’s game, the wise should take note that if Tuesday’s argument is any indication, Obamacare is in constitutional trouble.
  3. Severability: The most likely ruling on severability is that all of Obamacare will fall along with its fatally flawed individual mandate.  While such a result would be legally correct, it would still be stunning.  Perhaps even more remarkable is that the severability argument proceeded under the general assumption that the mandate would indeed be struck down.  This was not a mere hypothetical situation about which the justices speculated, but rather a very real, even probable, event.  There’s still a possibility that a “third way” will develop between the government’s position (mandate plus “guaranteed issue” and “community rating”) and that of the challengers (the whole law) – perhaps Titles I and II, as Justices Breyer and Alito mused (and as Cato’s brief detailed) – but the only untenable position would be to sever the mandate completely from a national regulatory scheme that obviously wouldn’t work without it.
  4. Medicaid expansion/coercion: The justices don’t want to reach the factually complicated and legally thorny Medicaid issue.  That may be another marginal factor pushing one or more of them to strike down all of Obamacare under a straightforward severability analysis and leave the “spending clause coercion” issue for another day.  This was perhaps the most difficult of the four issues to predict, and having heard argument doesn’t really make that task easier.  A majority of the Court was troubled by the government’s “your money or your life” stance, but it’s not clear what standard can be applied to distinguish coercion from mere inducements.  Then again, if this isn’t federal coercion of the states, I’m not sure what is.

General post-argument reaction: All of my pre-argument intuitions were confirmed, and then some:  The Court will easily get past the AIA, probably strike down the individual mandate, more likely than not taking with it all or most of the rest of the law (including the Medicaid expansion).  Still, it was breathtaking to be in the courtroom to see the Chief Justice and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Alito all on the same page.  (For example, when Justice Kennedy’s first question during yesterday’s hearing was, “Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?” – a question hostile to the government – my heart began racing.)  Much as I’d love to think that my briefs helped get them there even a little bit, ultimately it’s the strength of the constitutional claims and the weakness of the government’s positions that prevailed – or will prevail if the opinions that come down in three months follow along the lines set by this week’s arguments.  They may not of course – trying to predict the Supreme Court isn’t a science—but I’m coming out of this week feeling very good.

Finally, for links to all of Cato’s briefs and my last series of op-eds on the Obamacare litigation, see Monday’s blog post.

Obamacare at the Supreme Court

As most readers are no doubt aware, the Supreme Court this week takes up six hours of argument in the Obamacare litigation.  Constitutional claims that were originally dismissed as “frivolous” and “easy” are now getting three days of hearings – unprecedented in the modern era. The Court has thus signaled what the American people have known all along, that the government’s breathtaking assertion of power goes beyond anything attempted in the history of the Republic.

Rather than repeat my previous writings on the subject, here’s a sketch of each of the four issues the Court will examine, along with a link to my recent op-ed on the subject (this month I’ve written on three of the four) and the relevant Cato amicus brief:

  1. Whether the challenge to the individual mandate is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act. –- 90 minutes on Monday – op-ed and brief.
  2. Whether Congress has the power to enact the individual mandate. –- 2 hours on Tuesday – op-ed and brief.
  3. Whether and to what extent the mandate, if unconstitutional, is severable from the rest of the law. –- 90 minutes – op-ed (with Richard Epstein and Mario Loyola) and brief.
  4. Whether the new conditions on all federal Medicaid funding (expanding eligibility, greater coverage, etc.) constitute an unconstitutional coercion of the states. – 1 hour – brief.

Are there any constitutional limits on what the federal government can do in the name of regulating interstate commerce? The government hasn’t offered any and we’ll see this week whether that’s good enough for the Supreme Court.

Here further is an analytical point-counterpoint I did with University of California-Irvine Law School dean Erwin Chemerinsky previewing the arguments, and here are a series of blogposts by Cato adjunct scholar Tim Sandefur doing the same.  Finally, you can view Cato’s recent conference on the subject here (individual mandate panel) and here (Medicaid expansion panel).

Let’s hope that the Court says that we have a government of laws rather than men, allowing Congress then to get back to the hard work of crafting a true national health reform that both improves the system and stays within constitutional bounds.

May the odds be ever in liberty’s favor!