What’s hated by unions
has businesses wary
and dropping coverage
like the ‘Skins secondary?
Causing thousands of layoffs
taking it’s toll?
What’s so good for people
that they’re forced to enroll?
What’s a law that’s so good
folks who passed and defended it
see it and got waivers
to be exempted? It’s
like Olestra, at first
it sounded hip
but we quickly found ourselves
dealing with a whole lot of sh…
Unions and businesses both in despair
So to recap, young people,
your hours get cut
and your income goes down
and your premium’s up
and the taxes you pay
with the cash you have left
go to pay for a stupid
video contest, touting
Unions and businesses both in despair
It’s hated by doctors and unions are mad.
Not since Billy Ray Cyrus
has someone made something this bad.
Another excerpt from David Goldhill’s new book Catastrophic Care: How American Health Care Killed My Father – And How We Can Fix It:
If the ACA places more of the burden of health care on the poor and the middle class, diverts resources into waste and unnecessary treatments, coddles an industry culture of dangerous sloppiness, and crowds out all other social priorities, then it will have actively hurt the very people it was intended to help.
Goldhill is the CEO of the Game Show Network, a member of the board of the Leapfrog Group, and will speak at a Cato forum on his book tomorrow, Wednesday, September 18, from 12-1:30 p.m. at the Cato Institute. The Brookings Institution’s Kavita Patel and I will provide comments.
Click here to register.
In his new book Catastrophic Care: How American Health Care Killed My Father – And How We can Fix It, business executive and life-long Democrat David Goldhill explains the folly of thinking that new technologies increase health costs:
Today, I withdrew cash at an ATM and paid bills online, saving myself considerable time not having to stand in line at the bank, as well as the expense of envelopes, stamps, and gas to get to the post office. I called my wife, who was visiting her parents in rural Russia, for five cents a minute. I used a free application on my phone to find a good Italian restaurant, reserve a table, and provide me with a map and directions to get there. At work, I participated in a four-city video conference (the total cost for the hour was $50 – significantly cheaper than flying everyone to one location). I microwaved some leftovers in an oven that cost less than a tank of gas. I watched a movie on my $49 DVD player and a baseball game in high definition on a large-screen TV that I bought this year for a third of what I paid for one of the same size five years ago. I finished my day sitting down to write this chapter on a $1,200 laptop that has two thousand times the processing power of the first desktop computer I bought – for three times the price – in 1989.
I did something else today: I read yet another article explaining that technology is driving up the cost of health care and will continue to do so for a long time.
Click here to register before it’s too late.
Another excerpt from David Goldhill’s new book, Catastrophic Care: How American Health Care Killed My Father – And How We can Fix It:
Despite the good intentions of its authors, the ACA is less a reform of our health care system than an extension of its current principles to their logical end…
In a system burdened by complexity, bureaucratic explosion, and lack of innovation, the ACA paves the way for even more rules, many of which are merely mandates for future rules and ever more committees and commissions…
The problem with the ACA isn’t that it represents “government takeover of heath care” or “socialism”…The problem with the ACA is that it’s so old-fashioned.
Register now for Cato’s book forum on Catastrophic Care featuring Goldhill, the Brookings Institution’s Kavita Patel, and me. The forum is this Wednesday, September 18, from 12-1:30pm at the Cato Institute. Click here to register. Seats are limited, so register now.
In 1992, after seeing their taxes raised 8 times in 9 years, the people of Arizona overwhelmingly approved Proposition 108, a ballot initiative that amended the state constitution to require tax and fee increases to be passed by a 2/3 vote in each of Arizona’s legislative bodies. Since then, Prop 108’s supermajority requirement has protected Arizona taxpayers from the kind of special-interest-driven tax increases that typically don’t enjoy public support. As a result, Arizona’s tax burden has fallen over the years, to the state’s great economic benefit.
Recently, however, as part of a brazen effort to force through Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, Governor Jan Brewer – who ran for reelection last year as a staunch opponent of Obamacare – sidestepped Prop 108 in a way that threatens to eviscerate its taxpayer protections and otherwise violate Arizona’s stricter-than-normal adherence to the separation of powers.
Because the Medicaid expansion will cost Arizona an untold sum, and did not receive the 2/3 majority required for it to raise the taxes to pay for itself, Brewer employed more creative means to raise Arizonans’ taxes: delegating the taxation authority to a state bureaucracy and calling it an “assessment.” This approach takes advantage of Prop 108’s exception for “fees and assessments that are authorized by statute, but are not prescribed by formula, amount or limit, and are set by a state officer or agency.” Interpreted Brewer’s way, the exception allows the legislature to delegate a taxing power to state agencies that the legislature itself doesn’t have. If read this way, the exception would forevermore swallow the rule and impose an outcome contrary to Prop 108’s stated purpose.
Accordingly, our friends at the Goldwater Institute last week filed suit in state court on behalf of state lawmakers – including Rep. Adam Kwasman, a good friend of mine who’s now the vice-chair of the Arizona House Ways & Means Committee – and their constituents, challenging the new tax as a violation of Arizona’s constitution and the state’s separation of powers. Goldwater argues that the hidden tax violates Prop. 108’s supermajority requirement for new taxes, and that Arizona’s strict separation of powers prohibits the delegation of taxing power to an unaccountable state bureaucracy.
Goldwater is clearly in the right. Prop 108 was adopted for the plain purpose of preventing precisely this type of special interest tax-and-spend behavior – behavior the people of Arizona will be even less able to oppose if state courts determine that a bare legislative majority can delegate taxation power that it doesn’t itself possess. Brewer’s Medicaid expansion, meanwhile, threatens to take the taxing power out of Arizonans’ hands and give it to bureuacrats and the special interests that lobby them.
It will be a shame if Arizona courts permit Brewer’s newfound insistence on enabling Obamacare to effectively neuter a constitutional provision supported by more than 70% of voters. For more commentary on the case, read Josh Blackman.
This blogpost was co-authored by Cato legal associate Julio Colomba.
Halbig v. Sebelius is one of two federal lawsuits challenging an illegal IRS rule that attempts to issue ObamaCare’s tax credits in the 34 states that have opted not to establish one of the law’s health insurance “exchanges.” Yesterday, attorneys for the Halbig plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, requested a hearing on that motion before October 1, and filed a second motion also seeking to expedite the case. The first motion requests:
an Order enjoining [the government], pending resolution of the litigation, from applying the IRS regulations extending eligibility for premium assistance subsidies under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to individuals who purchase health coverage through Exchanges established by the federal government.
If the court grants that request, ObamaCare implementation will come to a screeching halt.
The Halbig plaintiffs make a compelling case that the IRS is violating federal law, and that the court must resolve the issue before January 1, 2014. If a resolution comes after that date, the plaintiffs will be irreparably injured because they “will be forced either to comply with the ACA’s individual mandate or risk incurring a penalty, and…will further be entirely and forever precluded from purchasing catastrophic coverage for 2014.” In addition:
the balance of the equities and public interest both cut strongly in favor of resolving the legal validity of the IRS Rule now, before billions of taxpayer dollars are illegally expended and before employers make unalterable benefit decisions premised on the Rule. If a ruling invalidating the IRS Rule is delayed until after these events, the result would be utter chaos…It serves everyone’s interests—those of Plaintiffs, the Government, and the public alike—to obtain a prompt ruling on the legal validity of the IRS Rule, so that there will be no need subsequently to confront the logistical nightmare of trying to unscramble and undo the unlawful expenditure of billions of federal dollars. [Emphasis in original.]
Even if the government ultimately prevails, as health-benefits expert Thomas Haynes explains in a supplemental filing, it would unnecessarily and irreparably injure some employers and employees if that happens in 2014 instead of 2013. Brokers who are aware that the availability of these tax credits is uncertain in 34 states will counsel employers not to adjust their employee benefits to take advantage of that still-uncertain new landscape. Those employers and employees would then be locked into spending more on health insurance in 2014 than they would if the litigation had been resolved in 2013.
The Obama administration, however, is in no hurry. In Halbig, for example, government lawyers have blown through the legal deadlines for responding to key plaintiff motions, deadlines that passed months ago. Indeed, they appear to be using every tactic at their disposal to guarantee these cases will not be resolved this year.
Whether the Obama administration’s lawyers simply have a lot on their plate, or are intentionally trying to prejudice judges against ruling for the plaintiffs – by guaranteeing that such a ruling would result in maximum chaos – a preliminary injunction is in order.
This work by Cato Institute is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.