by | ARTICLES, BLOG, CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
Now this is pretty interesting. Last week, a federal district judge ruled in favor of the House of Representatives against the Obama Administration with regarding to Obamacare payments and Congressional appropriations. Specifically, the ruling allow for House to continue their lawsuit which claims that the Executive Branch (via Health and Human Services and the Treasury Department) has overstepped its authority by overspending on Obamacare beyond what was appropriated to them by Congress.
Rollcall has a great overview of what is at stake, how difficult the question it, how it affects the Constitution, and what it says about the Separation of Powers. You should take a few minutes and read it in full, as this type of lawsuit is fairly rare.
The House can pursue some constitutional claims in a lawsuit against the Obama administration over appropriations and implementing the health care overhaul law, a federal district judge ruled Wednesday.
The ruling means Congress has cleared a high procedural hurdle in the separation of powers case, one that usually stops the judiciary from stepping into fights between lawmakers and the executive branch.
The House has legal standing to pursue allegations that the secretaries of Health and Human Services and Treasury are spending $175 billion over the next 10 fiscal years that was not appropriated by Congress, Judge Rosemary M. Collyer of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., wrote in the 43-page ruling.
The House lawsuit asks the court to declare the president acted unconstitutionally in making payments to insurance companies under Section 1402 of the health care overhaul law (PL 111-148, PL 111-152) and to stop the payments.
House Speaker John A. Boehner said the court’s ruling showed that the administration’s “historic overreach can be challenged by the coequal branch of government with the sole power to create or change the law. The House will continue our effort to ensure the separation of powers in our democratic system remains clear, as the Framers intended.”
Wednesday’s ruling does not address the merits of the claims. Collyer acknowledged that the court was taking a rare step, but doing so carefully into a high-profile dispute, so that it wouldn’t give the House standing to file other similar lawsuits.
“Despite its potential political ramifications, this suit remains a plain dispute over a constitutional command, of which the judiciary has long been the ultimate interpreter,” Collyer wrote. “The court is also assured that this decision will open no floodgates, as it is inherently limited by the extraordinary facts of which it was born.”
The dispute focuses on two sections of the health care overhaul law. The administration felt it could make Section 1402 Offset Program payments from the same account as Section 1401 Refundable Tax Credit Program payments. House Republicans say the health care law doesn’t permit that.
The Obama administration, during the fiscal 2014 appropriations process, initially asked Congress for a separate line item for 1402 payments. Congress did not include money for such a line item. During oral arguments in the case in May, Collyer questioned government lawyers about why the administration could ignore Congress and then argue that the House couldn’t sue them.
The administration argued that the House has other options, such as political remedies or passing other legislation, they said.
Jonathan Turley, the attorney for the House, said in a statement that the ruling means that the House “now will be heard on an issue that drives to the very heart of our constitutional system: the control of the legislative branch over the ‘power of the purse.’ We are eager to present the House’s merits arguments to the Court and remain confident that our position will ultimately prevail in establishing the unconstitutional conduct alleged in this lawsuit.”
Turley said the administration had argued that Congress couldn’t seek judicial enforcement of its constitutional status. “The position would have sharply curtailed both the legislative and judicial branches. The Court has now answered that question with a resounding rejection of this extreme position,” he said.
The case at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell, No. 14-cv-1967.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
A piece from the Washington Times this week hammers out what most of us already know — that Obamacare is lagging severely behind its initial projections for participants. The lackluster enrollment in turns impacts the financial side of Obamacare because it has missed key targets that were counted on in budget planning.
The Obama Administration has tried all sorts of gimmicks so far to tout Obamacare as a success. First it was caught counting dental plans among enrollment figures to bolster numbers, and then it slashed last year’s CBO estimate for 2015 enrollees by more than three million down to 9.1 million in order to show success if it passed the target amount (hint: it did, at 9.9 million).
Additionally, the Obama Administration has delayed implementing various parts of the bill due to backlash from citizens and businesses alike over plan availability, and also as an effort to stave off sharp premium increases which we were told would never happen. Remember how Obamacare would save $2500/family?
The article is a good overview of the current state of Obamacare. It’s worth it to read in full below:
President Obama will need to more than double the number of Americans enrolled in Obamacare exchange plans to reach 21 million next year, the target set in budget projections, in what is shaping up as the next major test for the health care law.
As of June, the Department of Health and Human Services counted 9.9 million customers who have bought plans through the federal HealthCare.gov portal and a handful of state-run exchanges.
That puts the administration ahead of it’s own estimates for 2015, but is less than half what the Congressional Budget Office projected for 2016, showing just how much work officials have ahead of them as the next round of enrollment begins in less than two months.
That puts the administration ahead of it’s own estimates for 2015, but is less than half what the Congressional Budget Office projected for 2016, showing just how much work officials have ahead of them as the next round of enrollment begins in less than two months.
“It is definitely something that people pay attention to,” said Rachel Klein, director of organizational strategy at Families USA, a nonprofit that advocates for affordable health care.
The tax during the first year was $95 or 1 percent of income above the filing threshold — a relatively minor bite. This year, the penalty will be $325 or 2 percent of income, and by 2016 it will be $695 or 2.5 percent of income.
“The substantial increase in penalties under the individual mandate next year is a big wild card,” said Larry Levitt, a senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health policy organization. “We’re in unchartered territory here about how effective these bigger penalties will be in nudging people to get insured.”
“The marketplaces are working,” Mr. Levitt added, “but higher enrollment would both improve the insurance risk pool and reduce the number of Americans uninsured.”
The individual mandate was included in the Affordable Care Act of 2010 to make sure enough healthy Americans signed up, spreading out the costs for higher-risk customers.
A divided U.S. Supreme Court upheld the mandate in 2012 as an appropriate use of Congress’ taxing power.
But congressional Republicans are still intent on scrapping the health care law, and may use a fast-track budget procedure known as “reconciliation” to take a swing at it.
GOP leaders say they may not be able to eviscerate the law through the budget, but Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan, said repealing the individual mandate is “definitely on the table.”
“This law is only being held together by mandates and coercion, and that’s why we continue to look at ways to repeal the mandates and give people more freedom and choices,” Mr. Buck said.
Even as it struggles to meet the 2016 enrollment projection, the Obama administration is on track on other measures, including a CBO estimate that 17 million fewer people lack insurance this year because of the health care law.
But in setting lofty goals for the exchanges, the CBO estimated the effect of the individual mandate and other potential changes, including the belief that employers would shift workers onto the exchanges or that customers would enter the Obamacare marketplace ahead of late 2017, when they can no longer hold plans that do not comply with the law.
Under political duress, the White House let customers transition to compliant plans to keep Mr. Obama’s notorious promise that people who like their plans can keep them under his law.
Sizing up reality versus long-range estimates, Health and Human Services has begun to set its own, more modest goals for exchange enrollment, ignoring CBO’s guess of 12 million for 2015 and setting the mark at 9.1 million enrollees. So far, it’s besting its less ambitious goal.
The agency says it is doing its own evaluation of the marketplace and will likely announce its enrollment targets for 2016 before signups begin in November.
“At this point, the Congressional Budget Office’s projected enrollment total for 2016 seems overly optimistic,” Mr. Levitt said. “Enrollment may reach that level eventually, but I doubt it will happen by next year.”
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
It really irritates me that someone who has been incredibly wrong on the Obamacare issue can still be taken seriously anymore. Ezekiel Emanuel, one of the architects of Obamacare and Rahm Emanuel’s brother, has argued firmly for years that Obamacare will revolutionize the healthcare market and lower costs. Now that the actual hard data has come in, and that data has shown that Obamacare costs are actually rising substantially, Emanuel does this sort of backpedaling on the issue that is absolutely ridiculous.
In an article earlier this month, Emanuel discussed “The Coming Shock in Healthcare Increases.” It must’ve been a shock to him and all the rest of the so-called experts who implemented this albatross of legislation without any understanding of real-world impact — how could costs do anything except skyrocket with all the provisions and regulations contained within the bill?
Now, this expert admits that prices are rising, and will continue to rise, “without further action.” What does he propose? More government intervention:
“Experts from across the ideological spectrum agree that the key to long-term cost control is to pay doctors and hospitals in a way that rewards cost savings and quality. Such payment reforms would move Medicare and private payers away from paying a fee for each service—which encourages doctors to order unnecessary and even harmful tests and procedures.
The Obama administration recently announced a laudable goal: 50% of Medicare payments will be made under new payment models by 2018. But to reach this goal, the administration must change tactics and use the authority given to it under the law to rapidly expand payment reforms.”
Because the government has been both correct and efficient with regard to Obamacare so far? The entire program from the start, including the rollout, website, pricing, and exchanges has been one giant colossal failure.
As if it couldn’t get any worse, Emanuel goes on to discuss an Obamacare program called “Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs)” (created by more “experts”), which Emanuel begrudgingly admits has been an utter failure so far:
“While many reforms are being tested, the administration’s main focus has been on creating “accountable care organizations.” ACOs are groups of medical providers that are rewarded for achieving savings on their total spending while improving quality.
The results so far are less than encouraging. Several studies found that ACOs achieved minimal savings after two years. This is not unexpected. Investing in technology, hiring nurses and changing the way care is delivered is complex and takes time to implement effectively. But we don’t yet have evidence that ACOs can reduce costs substantially.
The bigger problem is scale. In the advanced ACO program—which penalizes health-care providers for overspending—13 of 32 participating groups dropped out. In the other ACO program—which rewards organizations for underspending but does not penalize them for excessive spending—the number of new participants is falling, and more than half of the participants are now deciding whether to renew.”
So when the people who are actively involved in healthcare — the healthcare providers — decline to participate in a half-baked scheme cooked up by the Obama Administration to lower costs, does it signal to any of the “experts” that maybe they really aren’t “experts” at all? Of course not! Emanuel instead proposes yet another government “reform” idea: Medicare bundling. He goes on to explain how this new program idea is wonderful and perfect and the solution to all of our current health care cost problems. Pinky swear.
He ends his ridiculous article with an ominous plea to his readers: “Time is running out. If Mr. Obama doesn’t act soon to control costs, escalating costs may ultimately threaten the sustainability of his coverage expansion—and his entire health-reform legacy.”
Mr. Obama’s bill has singlehandedly destroyed the healthcare system in this country. The last thing we need is more government meddling and fiddling with programs, for Mr. Obama to again “act soon to control costs.”
The only thing Emanuel is correct on is the need to bend cost curves down. But his solution — more government and more experts and more programs — is utterly incorrect. Tort reform and health savings accounts are the only way to achieve cost savings. Obamacare did neither, and now the entire healthcare industry is worse than before. Emanuel has proven to be anything but an expert, only a cheerleader for a failed policy. Why are we still listening to him and his ideas?
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
From my friend, Michael Cannon:
It appears that Medicaid-expansion enrollees are going to cost states a lot more than they thought. According to a just-released “2014 Actuarial Report on the Financial Outlook for Medicaid” from the Department of Health and Human Services, ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion is costing significantly more than projected:
“In 2014, the average benefit costs of newly eligible adult enrollees are expected to have been substantially greater than those for non-newly eligible adult enrollees in the program. Newly eligible adults are estimated to have had average benefit costs of $5,517 in 2014, 19 percent greater than non-newly eligible adults’ average benefit costs of $4,650. These estimates are significantly different from those in previous reports, in which average benefit costs for newly eligible adults in 2014 were estimated to be 1 percent lower than those of non-newly eligible adults.”
So the Obama administration had projected newly eligible Medicaid enrollees would cost about $50 less than other Medicaid-enrolled adults, but they actually cost nearly $1,000 more. Nice.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, CONSTITUTION, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, POLITICS, TAXES
During oral arguments of the Burwell v Obamacare case before the Supreme Court, the U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli made the case that the “court should defer to the interpretation of the Internal Revenue Service, which said the tax credits apply nationwide.” When the Obamacare decision was announced, it is clear that SCOTUS did apply deference, which was absolutely the worst possible solution.
The idea of “deference” refers “ to “Chevron deference,” “a doctrine mostly unknown beyond the halls of the Capitol and the corridors of the Supreme Court. It refers to a 1984 decision, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and it is one of the most widely cited cases in law. Boiled down, it says that when a law is ambiguous, judges should defer to the agency designated to implement it so long as the agency’s decision is reasonable.”
Given the current catastrophic state of the IRS, SCOTUS should have run from this idea as quickly as possible. The IRS has proven overwhelmingly in the last few years that no decision it makes is “reasonable” and therefore cannot be trusted as an unbiased, independent agency capable of carrying out a professional opinion on this or virtually any manner.
Even more unfortunately, not only did SCOTUS apply deference, which allowed the IRS rule to stand, it did so by taking expanding the concept of “Chevron Deference” even further in order to validate its decision. George Will, in a column written just after the Obamacare ruling was handed down, described how the decision now allows the executive branch to apply deference in situations that are not just ambiguous, but also “inconvenient for the smooth operation of something Congress created.” This is not interpreting law — this is legislating.
Therefore, the actions of the IRS — that is, willy-nilly creating rules which expanded the scope of Obamacare beyond its text — were indeed endorsed and given political cover by Roberts and his majority as they applied Chevron Deference. Instead of sending Obamacare back to the legislature for clarification, the judicial branch decided to step in and interpret the law for the sake of alleviating “inconvenience”. But this is wrong. Convenience, ease, and expediency should never be a rationale for the judicial branch to go beyond the scope of deciding whether or not a law is constitutional, as they did here.
The judicial branch, with this decision, seemed to act more in harmony with the legislative and executive one, instead of serving as a check against the others. What’s more, “besides violating the separation of powers, this approach raises serious issues about whether litigants before the courts are receiving the process that is due to them under the Constitution. It would result if its branches behaved as partners in harness rather than as wary, balancing rivals maintaining constitutional equipoise.”
Will summed up the damage Roberts has done, which is likely to have lasting effects in the courts for years to come. Roberts goes “beyond “understanding” the plan; he adopts a legislator’s role in order to rescue the legislature’s plan from the consequences of the legislature’s dubious decisions. By blurring, to the point of erasure, constitutional boundaries, he damages all institutions, not least his court.”
How the Supreme Court uses and applies Chevron Deference in the coming years, in the way they did with this decision, will be especially interesting, given the expanded roles of many government agencies such as the EPA and FCC.
