Monthly Archives: August 2017

Obamacare, the Constitution, and “Sabotage”

An inside look at an Oval Office meeting between President Trump and Democratic leaders…

 

Donald Trump:           Nancy, Chuck, so good to see you. I wanted to bring you some good news: We’re starting construction on the border wall tomorrow.

Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer:             What? Congress hasn’t appropriated money for the wall. And Congress has the “power of the purse,” not you. How can you say you’ll build the wall when we haven’t signed off on the funding?

Trump:            Because Barack Obama did it for years. What about his actions on Obamacare?

Pelosi:              What do you mean, what about Obamacare? It’s the law of the land—and you should stop sabotaging it!

Trump:            By “sabotaging Obamacare,” you mean failing to spend money on the cost-sharing subsidies to lower deductibles and co-payments…

Pelosi and Schumer: Right!

Trump:            …even though the text of Obamacare itself nowhere includes an appropriation for those subsidies…?

Pelosi and Schumer: Ummm…

Trump:            Let me get this straight: You’re accusing ME of sabotage, because YOU “forgot” to include an appropriation in Obamacare for more than $10 billion per year in spending?

Pelosi:              But “everyone understood” the law provided an appropriation…

Trump:            Even though you couldn’t be bothered to write it down?

Pelosi and Schumer: Ummm…

Trump:            Did either one of you—or for that matter, any Democrat—actually read the bill before voting for it?

Schumer:         I meant to, I swear! But Max Baucus said he hired the best experts, so we didn’t think we needed to.

Trump:            Didn’t those experts read the bill?

Schumer:         They spent all their time cutting deals to get the bill passed. Those Cornhusker Kickbacks don’t write themselves, y’know!

Trump:            Well, your loss is my gain. I’ve read some of the documents in the lawsuit over the cost-sharing subsidies. Do you know that the Obama Administration argued that the structure of the bill implied an appropriation, even though one doesn’t exist…?

Pelosi and Schumer: Yes…

Trump:            And Nancy, you remember the amicus brief you filed in the case right before my election, which said that the courts are “certainly not” the venue for litigating cases when the executive invents an appropriation, as it did with the cost-sharing subsidies…?

Pelosi:              But…but…but…

Trump:            That means I can argue that there’s an appropriation behind any law Congress has passed—like the bill you voted for, Chuck, authorizing construction of the border fence…

Schumer:         What?

Trump:            …And you can’t go to court to stop me!

Pelosi and Schumer: But you requested funding from Congress—and we refused to grant it!

Trump:            You mean, like Congress refused to appropriate funds for the Obamacare cost-sharing reductions, after President Obama requested them…?

Pelosi and Schumer: Ummm…

Trump:            The Obama Administration testified before Congress that it had the authority to spend money on the cost-sharing reductions because Congress didn’t explicitly stop them from spending it, correct?

Schumer:         Yes…

Trump:            And Nancy, your brief said the same thing: That unless Congress explicitly prohibits a President from spending money, the President has free rein to do so…

Pelosi:              But I was trying to protect Obamacare from sabotage!

Trump:            Did you take an oath to support and defend the Constitution, or to support and defend Obamacare?

Pelosi and Schumer: There’s a difference?

Trump:            Yes—and here it is. Thanks to President Obama’s precedent, I can make up whatever appropriations I want—and by your own admission, you can’t go to court to stop me. You could in theory enact a bill prohibiting me from spending money on these phantom appropriations. But because I have a veto pen, you’ll need a 2/3rds majority in each chamber to override me. You don’t have a 2/3rds majority, do you?

Pelosi and Schumer: No, Mr. President.

Trump:            Didn’t think so. So I’ll get my funding for the border wall—and increased defense funding to boot. And maybe I’ll find some other appropriations too. I think the structure of Michelle Obama’s school lunch program implies an appropriation for a new chef at Mar-A-Lago…

Pelosi:              You know, Mr. President, maybe we need to re-think our position on these phantom appropriations. I signed that legal brief the week before the election, not knowing who the next President would be. I thought that power would be safe in her hands…

Trump:            WRONG!

Pelosi:              But executive power has its limits—and Congress should jealously guard its “power of the purse,” regardless of which party holds power at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Otherwise, we could see all sorts of unintended consequences from legislation…

Trump:            You mean, we had to pass the bill so that you could find out what is in it…?

Pelosi:              Well played, Mr. President.

Three Ways Kathleen Sebelius Sabotaged the Rule of Law

Of all the people crying “sabotage” when it comes to Obamacare, Kathleen Sebelius might be the most qualified on the subject. Presiding over the disastrous “launch” of healthcare.gov in the fall of 2013, then-Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius famously testified before Congress: “Hold me accountable for the debacle—I’m responsible.”

Likewise, in her claims this week that the Trump administration “has consistently tried to undermine the law that is the law of the land,” Sebelius knows of which she speaks. She presided over numerous actions that violated the text of Obamacare, and the Constitution, to thwart the will of Congress and undermine “the law of the land”—Obamacare as it was actually written, not as Democrats wished it were written—and the rule of law in general.

1. Unconstitutional ‘Like Your Plan’ Fix

As Sebelius presided over the healthcare.gov “debacle,” the Obama administration faced a serious political crisis. While the federally run exchange melted down, millions of Americans received cancellation notices in the mail, learning that because their plans did not meet Obamacare’s myriad new regulations, they would lose their coverage effective January 1, 2014.

The notices demonstrated the emptiness of Obama’s repeated promises that individuals who liked their plans could keep them—PolitiFact’s “Lie of the Year.” Moreover, the malfunctioning website created the possibility that millions of Americans could lose their existing coverage while having no way to purchase a replacement policy.

In response to the uproar, the Obama administration essentially decided to take the law into its own hands. Sebelius’ department issued a memo saying it would refuse to enforce the law for certain categories of insurance policies, allowing states and insurers the latitude to maintain individuals’ prior coverage. Even supporters of Obamacare like Nicholas Bagley said the administration’s actions violated the Constitution—the executive refusing to enforce provisions of a law it found politically inconvenient.

This space has previously argued that the Trump administration must enforce Obamacare’s individual mandate, despite any opposition to the mandate on policy grounds, given that the executive must faithfully execute the laws—all of them. But given that Sebelius failed to enforce parts of the law as written for political reasons, who is she to argue that Trump cannot do likewise?

2. Illegal Reinsurance Subsidies

The Government Accountability Office last year ruled that the Obama administration “undermined the law that is the law of the land,” as Sebelius alleges of the Trump administration. Specifically, GAO found that the Obama administration illegally prioritized health insurance companies over American taxpayers, funneling billions of reinsurance dollars that should have remained in the U.S. Treasury (to pay for a separate Obamacare program) to corporate welfare payments to insurance companies. After this rebuke from nonpartisan auditors, the Obama administration still made no attempt to comply with the law as interpreted by GAO.

If Sebelius is as concerned about “undermin[ing] the law that is the law of the land” as she claims, she should have publicly demanded that the Obama administration comply with the law, and the GAO ruling. She did no such thing then, and is unlikely to ask the Trump administration to claw back the corporate welfare payments to insurers now.

3. Unconstitutional Payments to Insurers

The Obama administration did not just violate the law in making payments to health insurers, it violated the Constitution as well. The text of Obamacare—“the law that is the law of the land,” in Sebelius’ words—included no appropriation making payments to insurers to reimburse them for cost-sharing reductions provided to individuals. The Obama administration made the payments anyway.

A federal judge ruled against the Obama administration’s actions last year, stating that they violated the Constitution for spending money without an appropriation. While the payments have continued pending an appeal, if Sebelius worries about preserving “the law that is the law of the land,” then she would support implementing the law as written, and stopping the payments immediately, unless and until Congress approves an explicit appropriation.

Ends and Means

Sebelius’ comments show a fundamental disconnect between means and ends. The Obama administration’s actions suggest a concern largely, if not solely, about signing up as many individuals for taxpayer-funded coverage as possible. If achieving that object meant violating the law, or the Constitution, so be it—the ends justified the means.

Sebelius’ real disagreement therefore doesn’t lie with the Trump administration on “undermining the law.” She did plenty of that herself, likely with full knowledge she was doing so. Instead, her true objection lies in the fact that the Trump may have different policy ends than ones she supports.

If Sebelius wants to espouse different policy positions than the current administration, that is her right. But given the ways in which the last administration repeatedly violated Obamacare to suit its own purposes, conservatives should take no lessons from Sebelius on how to avoid “undermining the law.” Physician, heal thyself.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

How Donald Trump Created the Worst of All Possible Health Care Worlds

Following last week’s developments in the ongoing saga over Obamacare’s cost-sharing reduction (CSR) payments, two things seem clear. First, President Trump won’t stop making these payments to insurers, designed to reimburse them for providing reduced deductibles and copayments to low-income individuals. If Trump’s administration continued to pay CSRs to insurers mere weeks after the Obamacare “repeal-and-replace” effort collapsed on the Senate floor, it should be fairly obvious that this president won’t cut off the payments.

Second, notwithstanding the above, Trump won’t stop threatening to halt these payments any time soon. Seeing himself as a negotiator, Trump won’t cede any leverage by committing to make future payments, trying to keep insurance companies and Democrats in suspense and extract concessions from each. He has received no concessions from Democrats, and he likely has no intentions of ever stopping the payments, but will continue the yo-yo approach for as long as he thinks it effective—in other words, until the policy community fully sees it as the empty threat that it is.

The combination of these occurrences has created the worst of all possible worlds for the president, his administration, and Republicans. Conservatives can, and should, criticize Trump for continuing to violate the Constitution in making the payments. But liberals will also criticize Trump for violating the Constitution only on a piecemeal, month-by-month basis, claiming that the threat to cut off the unconstitutional payments “sabotages” Obamacare.

President Trump Is Savaging the Constitution

From a constitutional perspective, Trump’s approach to CSRs undermines the rule of law. The president referred to the payments in a May interview with The Economist, stating that “If I ever stop wanting to pay the subsidies, which I will [sic].”

But as any conservative will explain (and this space previously outlined), the president cannot stop making any payments unilaterally. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Train v. City of New York that if a law makes a constitutional appropriation, the president cannot refuse to spend the money. He must make the appropriation. Conversely, if the law lacks an appropriation, the president cannot spend money—that prerogative lies with Congress, as per Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution.

Judge Rosemary Collyer ruled last May that Obamacare lacks an appropriation for the cost-sharing reduction payments. If the president agrees, he should stop the payments immediately. If the president disagrees, he should continue the Obama administration’s appeal of that ruling, and commit to making payments unless and until the Supreme Court orders him to stop. Instead, the president has treated the payments—and thus the Constitution—as his personal plaything, which he can obey or disregard on his whim.

This Policy ‘Uncertainty’ Has Consequences

From a policy perspective, the president’s dithering—and the continued threats that he has yet to carry through on (and likely never will)—are having an impact. For years, insurers—wrongly—ignored the threat that CSR payments could disappear, even as some individuals publicly warned them of the risk.

Having under-estimated their risk before this year, many insurers have over-estimated their risk now. Carriers have threatened higher premium increases, or reduction in service areas, because they finally recognize the inherent uncertainty around CSR payments lacking an explicit appropriation in statute.

Insurers’ cries of “uncertainty” have joined chorus with liberals’ claims of “sabotage” against the Trump administration. The same liberal groups and advocates who failed to recognize the uncertainty last year—because higher premiums for 2017 would have hurt Hillary Clinton and Democrats during last fall’s elections—now almost gleefully embrace the concept, believing it can benefit them politically.

Therein lies the full scope of the political danger for Trump and Republicans. It seems obvious that Trump will continue to make the payments to insurers. But it seems equally obvious that Trump enjoys keeping insurers on the proverbial short leash, and won’t give them the “certainty” over the payments that they desire. The end result: An administration that receives political blame from the Right for making unconstitutional payments, and from the Left for “uncertainty”-related premium increases, because Trump has not confirmed those unconstitutional payments will continue.

Rule of Law, Not of Men

In many respects, Trump has provided a perfect illustration of the problems inherent in creating a government based on men and not laws. When President Obama decided to violate the Constitution by making CSR payments without an appropriation, he created a scenario whereby any future president could do exactly what Trump appears to relish: Hold the flow of funds as a political cudgel in an attempt to bend people to his desires.

But in an ironic twist, the political benefit from creating this unilateral policy could accrue to Democrats, if Republicans receive fallout from higher premiums in 2018. Perhaps that outcome could persuade both parties to abandon the executive unilateralism that has become far too common in recent administrations. Restoring the rule of law seems like such a simple, yet novel, concept that some enterprising politicians in Washington might want to try it.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

A “Grand Bargain” on Obamacare Repeal?

To know where you’re going, it helps to recognize where you’ve been. Examining the causes of Republicans’ legislative setbacks on health care—including last month’s dramatic failure of a “skinny” repeal bill on the Senate floor—provides the glimmer of a path forward for a legislative “repeal-and-replace” package, if they are bold enough to take it.

In both the House and the Senate, debate focused on a push-pull between two competing issues: The status of Medicaid expansion in the 31 states that accepted it, and what to do about Obamacare’s regulatory regime. During the spring and summer, congressional leaders attempted messy compromises on each issue, phasing out the higher federal match for Medicaid expansion populations over time, while crafting complex processes allowing states, insurers, or both to waive some—but not all—of Obamacare’s regulatory requirements.

But rather than constructing substantively cumbersome waiver arrangements—the legislative equivalent of a camel being a horse written by committee—Occam’s Razor suggests a simpler, cleaner solution: Preserving the status quo (i.e., the enhanced federal match) on Medicaid expansion in exchange for full repeal of Obamacare’s insurance regulations at the federal level.

A “grand bargain” in this vein would give Senate moderates a clear win on Medicaid expansion, while providing conservatives their desired outcome on Obamacare’s regulations. For this conservative at least, the regulations represent the heart of the law, prompting both its spending on exchange subsidies—to offset the higher premium costs from the regulatory mandates—and the taxes needed to fund that spending. Expelling the regulations from the federal statute books would represent a clear step towards the promise of repealing Obamacare “root and branch,” and return control of health insurance to the states, where it lay from 1947’s McCarran-Ferguson Act until Obamacare.

Federal Regulations Are Driving Up Health Costs

When coupled with structural reforms to Medicaid—a block grant or per capita caps—included in the House and Senate bills, repealing the federal regulations would enable the “laboratories of democracy” to reassert control over their health insurance markets and Medicaid programs. It would also contrast favorably with a recent proposal introduced by senators Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA). While Graham claims his plan would “empower each individual state to choose the path that works best for them,” in reality it would retain federal dictates regarding pre-existing conditions—the most costly of all the Obamacare mandates.

In a sad irony, some of the same senators who want Congress to respect their states’ decisions to expand Medicaid also want to dictate to other states—as the Graham-Cassidy plan does—how their insurance markets should function. But the true test of federalism applies not in the principle’s convenience, but in its inconvenience.

I do not support single-payer health care, but as a federalist, I support the right of states like California and Vermont to explore a state single-payer system. There are other, arguably better, ways to cover individuals with pre-existing conditions than a Washington-imposed requirement, and true adherents of federalism would empower states to explore them.

Yes, This Idea Is Imperfect

To be sure, even this attempted “grand bargain” includes noteworthy flaws. Retaining the enhanced Medicaid match encourages states to prioritize expansion populations over individuals with disabilities in traditional Medicaid, and may lure even more states to accept the expansion. Keeping the higher Medicaid spending levels would preclude repealing all of Obamacare’s tax increases. And the Senate parliamentarian may advise that repealing Obamacare’s regulations does not comport with the budget reconciliation process. But despite the obvious obstacles, lawmakers should seriously explore this option. After Republicans promised repeal for four straight election cycles, the American people deserve no less.

Throughout the repeal process, conservatives have bent over backwards to accommodate moderates’ shifting legislative goalposts. When moderates objected to passing the repeal legislation all but one of them voted for two years ago, conservatives helped construct a “repeal-and-replace” bill. When moderates wanted to retain the Medicaid expansion in their states—even though the 2015 repeal bill moderates voted for eliminated it entirely—conservatives agreed, albeit at the traditional match rates. And when Senate moderates complained, conservatives agreed to a longer phase-out of the higher match rate, despite justifiable fears that the phase-out would never occur.

Winston Churchill purportedly claimed that Americans will always do the right thing—once they have exhausted every other possibility. This “grand bargain” may not represent the “right” outcome, or the best outcome. But conservatives have exhausted many other possibilities in attempting to come to an agreement. Perhaps moderates will finally come to accept federalism—giving states a true choice over their insurance markets, rather than trying to dictate terms—as the solution to keeping their promise to the American people and repealing (at least part of) Obamacare.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

CBO Report Shows Bogus Nature of Obamacare “Sabotage” Charges

If you need any additional evidence as to the trumped-up (pardon the pun) charges of Obamacare “sabotage” leveled against the current president, look no further than the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report about cost-sharing subsides released yesterday. In the report, CBO concluded that ending subsidy payments—which the law never appropriated to begin with—would keep premiums roughly constant for most individuals, increase spending on insurance subsidies, and increase the number of insured Americans modestly.

Which one of those outcomes do Democrats oppose? Exactly none. Which illustrates why all the self-righteous indignation about President Trump “sabotaging” Obamacare is as much about the individual inhabiting the Oval Office as it is about health care policy.

Check the Cost-Sharing Analysis

The CBO report, as with other prior analyses, assumed that eliminating the cost-sharing reductions—used to reimburse insurers for providing discounted deductibles and co-payments to certain low-income households—would lead insurers to raise premiums, but only for certain plans. Because the law requires insurers to lower cost-sharing regardless of whether the federal government provides separate reimbursement payments for that, insurers would “load” those reductions on to silver insurance plans—but only on insurance exchanges. This change would exempt plans sold off the exchanges, where individuals do not qualify for subsidies, from the higher premium effects.

The higher premiums for silver plans on exchanges would lead to higher spending on insurance subsidies, which Obamacare links to the second-lowest silver premium. And those richer subsidies would attract some more individuals to insurance markets, reducing the number of uninsured by about one million.

Democrats may seize upon CBO’s finding that this scenario would increase the deficit as reason to oppose it. But if Democrats cared about protecting taxpayers, they would have objected to the Obama administration’s actions—actions that the Government Accountability Office concluded last year violated the statute—placing insurance companies ahead of ordinary taxpayers in receiving reinsurance payments. They didn’t object on behalf of taxpayers then, so why object in this case? Is it really about policy, or is it just crass politics?

Liberal Hypocrisy on the Individual Mandate

Likewise, liberals charge that the president could refuse to enforce Obamacare’s individual mandate, encouraging healthy people to drop coverage and causing insurance markets to deteriorate further. In reality though, his room for maneuver is more limited. If the president decided to issue blanket exemptions to the mandate, or not enforce it, insurers likely would sue the administration for failing to execute its constitutional duties—and they could, and should, win. Under our Constitution, the president can, should, and must enforce all the laws, including the mandate, not just the ones he agrees with.

Given their own party’s history with the mandate, liberals’ sudden insistence on its “enforcement” sounds more than a bit rich. Democrats were the ones who, when faced with the fact that non-compliance with the mandate could lead to jail time, expressly wrote the law to prevent the use of such enforcement mechanisms. And the last administration was, if anything, far too liberal with hardship exemptions to the mandate, giving them to individuals who received a notice from a utility threatening to shut off service, or those who had a close family member die in the past three years.

So is the issue with President Trump’s supposed non-enforcement of the mandate, or the fact that he’s the one making decisions on exactly how the mandate will be enforced?

Pester People into Enrolling

The Trump administration could certainly influence insurance markets through outreach efforts. Liberal groups have spent weeks complaining that the Department of Health and Human Services has not solicited them for this fall’s open enrollment season.

But put things into perspective. A Politico story in January noted that the Trump administration reduced television advertising by about $800,000 per day for the last four days of open enrollment—a few million dollars. If Obamacare—entering its fifth open enrollment period this fall—is so fragile that losing a few million dollars of advertising will tank insurance markets, what does that say about the stability, let alone the wisdom, of the law in the first place?

The federal government shouldn’t need to spend millions of dollars every year pestering people into enrolling in coverage, not least because insurance companies can and should do that themselves. President Trump should enforce the law as it’s written—a novel task compared to his predecessor, who seemingly relished in re-writing it unilaterally—but sabotage? Democrats sabotaged the law themselves when they passed it seven years ago, and no amount of opportunistic (and disingenuous) rhetoric can change that fact.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Restoring the Rule of Law to Obamacare

Over the last several months, this space has highlighted that President Trump has an opportunity and a challenge: Restoring the constitutional rule of law his predecessor often ignored. Such a move would require ending the Obama administration’s ad hoc rewriting of Obamacare, implementing the law as written—no more, no less.

Into that debate stepped the Conservative Action Project on Friday, with a memo noting that the president can and should lead on Obamacare. The title suggests a continuation of Obama’s “pen and a phone” mentality, emphasizing executive unilateralism in the face of Congress’ inability to pass “repeal-and-replace” legislation regarding Obamacare.

So Far Trump Is Perpetuating Obama’s Law-Breaking

The document contains numerous important suggestions to undo President Obama’s illegal executive acts. For instance, it encourages Trump to “take action to end the illegal and unconstitutional cost-sharing subsidies to the insurance companies,” ending their disbursement. This development would be not only welcome, but far overdue.

For more than six months President Trump has continued his predecessor’s habit of violating the Constitution to disburse billions of unappropriated dollars to insurance companies. To both enforce the rule of law and end crony capitalist dealings between “Big Government” and “Big Insurance,” Trump should end the unconstitutional subsidies forthwith.

The CAP letter also rightly calls on Trump to “end the illegal diversion of money from the U.S. Treasury to insurance companies.” The Government Accountability Office ruled last September that the Obama administration had violated the text of Obamacare by prioritizing reinsurance payments to insurers over required payments to the Treasury. As with the cost-sharing subsidies, President Trump should put the rule of law—and taxpayers—ahead of insurance companies’ special interests.

The CAP document calls for President Trump to “continue to fight for repeal of the individual mandate,” but—thankfully—does not call for Trump to defang the mandate unilaterally. As I wrote back in January, when administration officials first suggested they may not enforce the mandate at all, “a Republican Administration should not be tempted to ‘use unilateral actions to achieve conservative ends.’ Such behavior represents a contradiction in terms.”

You Can’t Ignore the Law Because You Don’t Like It

In this same vein, CAP’s call for the Trump administration to “expand the exemption for so-called ‘grandmothered’ plans” represents an open invitation for the president to violate the Constitution, just as his predecessor did. These “grandmothered” plans should have been cancelled in January 2014, as they did not—and do not—comply with the new statutory requirements included in Obamacare.

In late 2013, President Obama faced political controversy for his “If you like your plan, you can keep it” broken promise, which became PolitiFact’s Lie of the Year. To stanch his political bleeding and solve the problem of millions of cancellation notices—along with a broken website preventing individuals with cancelled plans from buying new ones—Obama tried to pass the proverbial buck. He said his administration would allow states, if they chose, to let individuals keep their plans—temporarily. This purportedly “temporary” solution has been extended numerous times, and now is scheduled to expire at the end of 2018.

Unfortunately, as law professor (and Obamacare supporter) Nicholas Bagley has noted, Obama’s unilateral creation of these “grandmothered” health plans violated his constitutional duties as chief executive: “The Administration thus used the public pronouncements of its non-enforcement policies to encourage the regulated community to disregard provisions of [the law]. Prospectively licensing large groups of people to violate a congressional statute for policy reasons is inimical to the Take Care clause.”

To put it more bluntly, the president cannot decline to enforce the law because he finds himself in a political jam, whether due to a broken promise, a non-functioning website, or mere disagreement with the law in question. That principle applies as equally to President Trump as it does to President Obama. Trump’s extension of “grandmothered” plans violates the Constitution as much as President Obama’s did—and expanding those plans to include other forms of insurance would represent a further violation.

To be clear, as a matter of policy, I hate the idea of cancelling millions of insurance policies because they do not meet Obamacare’s myriad regulatory requirements. But as I noted recently, I believe President Trump should do just that—not because I support that outcome, or because President Trump supports it, but because the law requires it. He should have done that months ago—within days of taking office—to make clear that the cancellations stemmed from President Obama’s violation of his own health law, not any measure Trump himself wanted to implement.

Unfortunately, however, President Trump has yet to enforce the law, or the Constitution, when it comes to Obamacare, having undone none of his predecessor’s illegal and extralegal acts. For this conservative, hope springs eternal, as tomorrow always brings another opportunity to do the right thing. Here’s to this administration finally realizing that the rule of law by definition means enforcing the laws one disagrees with—for that critical principle exceeds the value of any particular law, no matter how onerous or obscure.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Liberals’ Hypocrisy on Per Capita Caps

It was, to borrow from Arthur Conan Doyle, the dog that didn’t bark. In releasing the annual report on its finances, Medicare’s actuary last month found that the program would not trigger requirements related to the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) this year—or for several years to come. Although the Senate and House health-care bills avoided altering Medicare, the IPAB development—or non-development, as it were—should inject some important perspective into the legislative debate.

Many liberal critics of the Republican bills have attacked proposals to impose per capita caps on state Medicaid programs, while conveniently forgetting that Obamacare imposed similar spending caps on Medicare. In fact, Section 3403 of the law empowers IPAB—a board of unelected bureaucrats—to make binding recommendations to Congress reducing program spending if Medicare will exceed statutory limits for spending per beneficiary.

The IPAB non-event should therefore put the harsh rhetoric surrounding Medicaid caps in perspective. After all, how damaging can per capita caps be if spending remains sufficiently low not to trigger them? And why do liberals who claim that health-care delivery reforms implemented by Obamacare can slow Medicare spending not believe that, given sufficient flexibility, states could similarly reform their Medicaid programs to lower costs—as states like Rhode Island already have done?

We Care More About Politics than Policy

Some Obamacare supporters claim that statutory restrictions on IPAB—in enforcing Medicare spending caps, the board may not change Medicare benefits or “ration health care”—will protect Medicare beneficiaries in a way that the current bills do not protect Medicaid recipients. But IPAB’s supposed “protections” have their own flaws. The statute does not define “rationing,” and then-Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Kathleen Sebelius testified in 2011 that HHS would need to draft regulations to do so. But the Obama administration never even proposed rules “protecting” Medicare beneficiaries from rationing under the IPAB per capita caps—so how meaningful can those protections actually be?

When push comes to shove, few liberals can justify their support for per capita caps on Medicare, but opposition to similar caps in Medicaid. One day on Twitter, I posed a simple question to Topher Spiro, of the Center for American Progress (CAP): If the Republican proposals for per capita caps in Medicaid included the same beneficiary “protections” as IPAB creates for Medicare recipients, would he support them? I never received a substantive answer.

Therein lies the problem: Many critics of the Republican Medicaid proposals seem to prioritize political partisanship over policy consistency. Five years ago, CAP made very clear it supports IPAB’s per capita caps on Medicare spending, denouncing a 2012 legislative effort to repeal the board. But earlier this year, the organization denounced as “devastating” Republican proposals for per capita caps on Medicaid. So why exactly does this purportedly non-partisan organization support per capita caps when a Democratic Congress enacts them, but oppose similar caps proposed by a Republican Congress?

It’s Okay, It’s Just Hypocrisy

Likewise, the disability community has raised concerns about the proposed changes to Medicaid, attacking per capita caps as causing “massive cuts in Medicaid services.” But when issuing comments on the bill that became Obamacare in January 2010, the major coalition representing disability groups proposed 73 different recommendations in a document exceeding 5,500 words yet included not a sentence on the Medicare per capita caps ultimately included in the law.

Democratic senators appearing with disability advocates at events to denounce spending caps for Medicaid fail to recognize that they voted for similar caps in Medicare, which provides health coverage to 9 million Americans with disabilities. Moreover, despite being in place for several years, the Medicare caps have yet to be breached. So how damaging is a policy that hasn’t affected Medicare beneficiaries in the slightest, and which Democratic lawmakers themselves have voted for?

In his Sherlock Holmes story “Silver Blaze,” Doyle wrote of the guard dog that didn’t bark because it was friendly with an intruder. Likewise, many liberal advocates and Democratic lawmakers are quite friendly with per capita entitlement caps, already having imposed such caps for Medicare. Particularly given the non-factor of such caps in the Medicare program in recent years, they should perhaps “bark” less in opposing similar caps in Medicaid. Both beneficiaries and taxpayers deserve better than opportunistic—and politically inconsistent—scaremongering.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

“Problem Solvers’” Obamacare Solution: Single Payer

On Monday, a bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus in the House released their list of “solutions” regarding Obamacare. Developed over the past several months, the list can easily be summed up in a single phrase: Single payer.

The lawmakers didn’t come out and say as much, of course, but that would be the net result. In funding more bailout spending for insurers, the proposal clearly states that Obamacare is “too big to fail”—that no amount of taxpayer funding is too great to keep insurers offering coverage on the health exchanges. Enacting that government backstop would create a de facto single-payer health-care system—only with many more well-priced insurer lobbyists around to demand more crony capitalist payments from government to their industry.

Cost-Sharing Reductions

Suppose for a minute that a burglar comes into your house late at night and tries to steal your belongings. Upon apprehending the suspect, the burglar tells you that he only stole your property because he’s hungry and struggling to provide for his family.

In this scenario, how likely would you be just to give the burglar your property, so he could have the resources he needs? Probably not very. On the one hand, that would solve the burglar’s immediate problem, but the burglar broke the law—and ignoring that offense will only encourage future law-breaking.

That’s essentially the scenario facing Obamacare’s cost-sharing reduction payments, meant to subsidize discounted co-payments and deductibles for certain low-income individuals. Obamacare didn’t include an actual appropriation for the payments, so Barack Obama just made one up that didn’t exist. In essence, he stole both the constitutional spending power of Congress and taxpayer funds—recall that spending money without an appropriation is not just a civil, but a criminal, offense—to get Obamacare started.

Yet Congress seems far more worried about propping up Obamacare than holding President Obama to account—focusing solely on the outcomes to individuals, while caring not a whit for the effects on the rule of law. The Problem Solvers Caucus plan includes cost-sharing reduction payments with no accountability for the Obama sdministration’s flagrant violation of the Constitution.

Ironically, Tom Reed (R-NY) and other Republican members of the Problem Solvers Caucus voted in 2014 to authorize the lawsuit that declared the cost-sharing payments unconstitutional last year. But do Reed and his other colleagues actually want to do anything to enforce that lawsuit, and preserve the Constitution that they swore to uphold? Not a chance.

Reinsurance

The Problem Solvers Caucus plan also includes “stability fund” dollars designed to subsidize insurers for covering high-cost Obamacare enrollees. But here again, the proposal throws good money after bad at insurers, creating a new government program after non-partisan auditors concluded that insurers illegally received billions of dollars from the last federal bailout.

Last September, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that the Obama administration illegally funneled billions of dollars in reinsurance funds to health insurers rather than the U.S. Treasury. After taking in “assessments” (read: taxes) from employers, the text of Obamacare itself requires the government to repay $5 billion to the Treasury (to offset the cost of another Obamacare program) before paying health insurers reinsurance funds.

But when employer “assessments” generated less money than originally contemplated, the Obama administration put insurers’ needs for bailout funds over the law—and taxpayers’ interests. GAO found the Obama administration’s actions violated the law, costing taxpayers billions in the process.

As with the cost-sharing reduction payments, the Problem Solvers Caucus would give insurers even more money, while ignoring the prior illegal—and unconstitutional—acts that benefited health insurers under the Obama regime. In so doing, the Problem Solvers proposal would create another big problem, by incentivizing future presidents to keep breaking the law to advance their political agenda.

Throwing Money at Problems

In general, the Problem Solvers Caucus attempts to solve problems by throwing money at them, by paying tens of billions of dollars (at minimum) to insurers. But as Margaret Thatcher pointed out four decades ago, socialism always runs out of other people’s money—a problem that the proposal wouldn’t solve, but worsen.

The Problem Solvers Caucus proposal amounts to little more than an Obamacare TARP—that’s Turning Against Repeal Promises (or Taking Away Repeal Promises, if you prefer). In abandoning the repeal cause, and setting up a federal backstop for the entire health-care system, the plan would create a de facto single-payer health-care system. Bernie Sanders would be proud.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Tomi Lahren Is What’s Wrong with Obamacare

Over the weekend, as commentators Chelsea Handler and Tomi Lahren engaged in a political debate, a comment by the latter unwittingly pointed to one of the singular problems of Obamacare. When Handler asked what health plan she belonged to, Lahren responded, “Luckily I am 24 so I am still on my parents’…” Cue sarcastic laughter from the crowd.

The liberal audience in Pasadena mocked Lahren for her hypocrisy—attacking Obamacare while benefiting from it by staying on her parents’ health insurance—but they weren’t wrong in their criticism. While Lahren rightly pointed out that Obamacare “fails the very people that it’s intended to help,” if she wants to know the root cause of that failure, she should look in the mirror.

The Slacker Mandate Is Aptly Named

One report on the incident claimed that “extending insurance to older ‘dependents’ is not typically targeted by conservatives who criticize Obamacare.” In reality, though, conservatives have targeted this mandate—for instance, the paper released in 2012, while I worked for the Senate Republican staff of the Joint Economic Committee. It noted that mandates such as the under-26 provision raise premiums by a minimum of several hundred dollars per year, and that proposals to provide health insurance to 20-something “dependents” like Mark Zuckerberg (then 28) would create definite costs to achieve questionable benefits.

Since then, the case against this particular mandate has only increased. A National Bureau of Economic Research paper released last year found a significant economic impact: “We find evidence that employees who were most affected by the mandate, namely employees at large firms, saw wage reductions of approximately $1,200 per year. These reductions appear to be concentrated among workers whose employers offer employer-sponsored health insurance; however, they do not seem to be only borne by parents of eligible children or parents more generally.”

As the Wall Street Journal noted last year, the paper made clear that “no alleged government benefit is free and people should be allowed to make the trade-offs for themselves.” Apparently, however, alleged “conservative” Lahren believes otherwise.

The Tomi Lahren Case Study

Lahren’s comments provide a perfect case study against the under-26 mandate, in two respects. First, the “dependent” mandate has few statutory limits—whether income, lack of access to employer coverage, or both. That a pundit like Lahren can hold lucrative media contracts while remaining on her parents’ health coverage speaks to the absurdity of Obamacare’s definition of “dependent.”

Second, it proves Lahren’s criticism of Obamacare that the law “fails the very people it’s intended to help.” Because Lahren refuses to buy her own insurance plan, she raises premiums 1) for her parents’ co-workers, who have to pay for Lahren’s health costs as part of their coverage and 2) on insurance exchanges, where individuals are older and costlier than average precisely because many young adults remain on their parents’ policies.

With upper-middle-class households largely obtaining coverage through employers, and households of more modest means going through exchanges instead, the under-26 mandate represents a sizable transfer of wealth from the working class—who pay higher premiums—to the affluent—who gain the benefit of “free” coverage for their children. So Lahren is correct that Obamacare “fails the very people it’s intended to help”—because of people like her, who grab government “benefits” irrespective of the other individuals those “benefits” harm.

The end of the 2012 Joint Economic Committee paper noted that “a welfare state administered by the private sector, yet mandated by government, remains a welfare state at its core.” If Lahren wants to help the people Obamacare hurts, or even if she just wants to adhere to the conservative political beliefs she purports to follow, then perhaps she should use the coming weeks to explore her own health insurance options, rather than remaining part of the Obamacare welfare state she claims to abhor yet perpetuates.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.