Tag Archives: Chuck Schumer

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.

Inconvenient Truths over Obamacare’s Cost-Sharing Reductions

Leaders in both parties engaged in rhetorical bluster over the weekend regarding Obamacare’s cost-sharing reductions. Those payments to insurers for lowering deductibles and co-payments—ruled unconstitutional by a federal district court judge last May—remain in political limbo, and a subject of no small controversy.

But the rhetorical exchanges yielded inconvenient truths, both for Democratic leaders demanding the Trump administration continue the payments, and for the president himself, who has threatened to stop them.

Schumer: If the Payments Are Constitutional, Trump Can’t Withhold Them

Senate Majority Leader Schumer tweeted about what might happen “if @POTUS refuses to make CSR [cost-sharing reduction] payments.” There’s just one problem with his statement: If the payments are lawful, President Trump cannot refuse to make them. More than four decades ago, the Supreme Court held unanimously in Train v. City of New York that the Nixon administration could not spend smaller amounts than what Congress appropriated for a environment program.

Schumer therefore implicitly admitted—as elsewhere—that the payments are not only illegal, but unconstitutional. Obamacare lacks an explicit appropriation for the cost-sharing reduction payments. That’s the reason Judge Rosemary Collyer ruled the Obama administration’s actions in making said payments unconstitutional last year. (The ruling is currently stayed pending appeals.)

As one summary of the case noted, Train v. City of New York established the principle that “the President cannot frustrate the will of Congress by killing a program through impoundment.” Yet Schumer, in asking the Trump administration to continue making payments to a program that Congress never funded in the first place, wants the executive unilaterally—and unconstitutionally—to frustrate the expressed will of the legislative branch, thereby diminishing Schumer’s own authority as a lawmaker.

It’s highly likely Schumer, a lawyer who spent several years serving on both the House and Senate judiciary committees, knows full well the nature of unconstitutional actions, begun by the last administration, that he wants the current one to continue. But if he wants to have any credibility on the rule of law—whether criticizing the Trump administration’s other “abuses,” or standing up for the independence of the Russia investigation—he would be wise to 1) admit that the Obama administration violated the Constitution in making the payments to begin with and 2) hold the last administration just as accountable as he wants to hold the current president.

Trump: Upholding the Constitution Is a Choice

Conversely, the president seems to delight in dangling in front of Democrats the prospect of cancelling the CSR payments, as he did most recently on Twitter Saturday, one day after the Senate failed to approve a “skinny” health-care repeal.

But for the president, as for Schumer, the question of the cost-sharing reduction payments should come down to a binary choice: Does a lawful appropriation for CSRs exist, or not? If a lawful appropriation exists, then the president must make the payments, consistent with Train v. City of New York outlined above. If a lawful appropriation does not exist, then the president must not make the payments, consistent with both Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution—“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law”—his duty to “take Care that the laws be faithfully executed,” and his oath of office.

This conservative believes President Trump should have cancelled the CSR payments within days of taking office, not because it would have been popular—it likely would not have been—but because the rule of law demands it. Likewise, President Trump should have long since undone billions of dollars in reinsurance payments to insurers that the Government Accountability Office found illegal, and cancelled the “grandmothered” plans President Obama allowed some individuals to keep in 2014—violating his constitutional duty to “take Care that the laws be fully executed” in the process.

Making a clean break with the numerous legal and constitutional violations the Obama administration perpetrated to keep Obamacare afloat early in his administration would have demonstrated President Trump’s desire to escape the executive unilateralism of his predecessor.

Government of Laws, Or of Men?

In drafting the Constitution for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, John Adams famously spoke of creating a government of laws, not of men. Yet both participants in the CSR drama this weekend seem insistent on creating an arbitrary government based on whim. In Schumer’s case, that whim stems from placing Obamacare on a higher pedestal than the Constitution, while the president’s whims seem most directed towards achieving a legislative victory on health care, no matter its form.

That Barack Obama, a constitutional law professor, bequeathed such legal gamesmanship and a culture of inherently arbitrary actions to both parties stands as one element of his legacy. As the debate this weekend demonstrated, that legacy has affected—and infected—our constitutional discourse, and not for the better.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Chuck Schumer Admits Obama Administration Violated the Constitution

Last week, one of Washington’s leading Democrats made what should be considered a stunning admission, yet few in the media bothered to notice, or care. In response to comments from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) about a potential bailout of Obamacare insurers, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said: “Democrats are eager to work with Republicans to stabilize the markets and improve [Obamacare]. At the top of the list should be ensuring cost-sharing payments are permanent, which will protect health care for millions.”

Schumer’s statement contradicts the Obama administration, which argued in federal court that the cost-sharing reductions are already permanent. It’s also an implicit admission that the Obama administration violated both the U.S. Constitution and federal criminal statutes by spending funds without an appropriation.

Some background on the matter at issue: Section 1302 of Obamacare requires health insurers to reduce cost-sharing (i.e., deductibles, co-payments, etc.) for certain low-income enrollees who buy silver plans on health insurance exchanges. The law directs the secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to create a program to reimburse insurers for the cost of providing those cost-sharing discounts. But the text of the law does not actually disburse funds to HHS—or any other cabinet department—to make the reimbursement payments to insurers.

Not wanting to be bound by such niceties as the rule of law, the Obama administration started making the payments to insurers anyway, claiming the “text and structure” of Obamacare allowed them to do so. The House of Representatives sued, claiming a violation of its constitutional “power of the purse,” and last May, Judge Rosemary Collyer agreed, ruling that the administration violated the Constitution.

Schumer Admits Constitutional Violation

Schumer’s statement last Thursday stands out because the Obama administration and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) have claimed, both in court and elsewhere, that Obamacare made a permanent appropriation for the cost-sharing payments. The law did no such thing, and a federal district court judge so ruled, but they attempted to argue that it did.

By conceding that Obamacare lacks a permanent appropriation for cost-sharing reductions, Schumer’s admission raises some interesting questions. The Obama administration requested an explicit appropriation for the cost-sharing reduction payments, a request Congress promptly denied. If there isn’t a permanent appropriation for cost-sharing payments in Obamacare—as Schumer admitted—then the Obama administration spent money without an appropriation.

The executive spending money without an appropriation not only violates Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution—“No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law”—but also the federal Anti-Deficiency Act, which prohibits federal employees from authorizing expenses in excess of available appropriations—which, according to Schumer’s logic, do not exist for the Obamacare cost-sharing reductions.

The Anti-Deficiency Act includes not just civil, but criminal, penalties: “An officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia government knowingly and willfully violating [the Act] shall be fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned for not more than 2 years, or both.”

By calling on Congress to “ensure” permanent cost-sharing reductions, Schumer has essentially admitted that President Obama violated the Constitution, and members of his administration may have violated federal criminal statutes by spending money without an appropriation. This prompts one other obvious question: When will Schumer endorse a special counsel to investigate these matters?

Don’t Endorse Law-Breaking

In deciding to pay the cost-sharing subsidies without an appropriation, the Obama administration and its allies have endorsed a strategy of ends justifying means: They wanted to provide health insurance to more Americans, therefore it was acceptable to violate the Constitution. And if the administration violated the Constitution long enough, and on a big enough scale, they could change the law to meet their will. Now that a federal court has ruled that President Obama did in fact violate the Constitution, that’s exactly what Pelosi and Schumer want to do: Change the law to accommodate the Obama administration’s law-breaking.

Conservatives shouldn’t buy it for a second. While liberals want the entire dispute to focus around ends—“Insurers must receive these payments, or millions of Americans will suffer!”—conservatives interested in the rule of law should focus on means: Did the administration violate the Constitution and federal criminal statutes, and who should be held responsible, and how?

Only after those weighty issues have been examined and adjudicated fully should Congress debate whether to appropriate funds for the cost-sharing reductions. To do otherwise would undermine the Constitution that members of Congress vowed to uphold, and further encourage the kind of flagrant law-breaking seen in the Obama administration.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Democratic Hypocrisy on Executive Power

In recent months, the press has focused on whether President Trump is “sabotaging” Obamacare—but in so doing, they’ve largely ignored a far bigger story regarding the rule of law. In attempting to defend Obamacare, Pelosi and several of her House colleagues have essentially sabotaged the Constitution, making claims that, if accepted into common practice, would cede massive power to the executive.

The charges of sabotage derive largely from Obamacare’s system of cost-sharing reductions, intended to help certain low-income individuals with deductibles and co-payments. While the law requires insurers to lower individuals’ cost sharing, and directs the Administration to reimburse insurers for those reductions, it nowhere gives the Administration an explicit appropriation to do so.

Questions about whether the Trump Administration might withdraw the cost-sharing payments to insurers therefore represent not sabotage, but a desire to comply with Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 of the Constitution: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” The true sabotage comes not from the Trump Administration, but from Democrats themselves, when they failed to include an appropriation in Obamacare seven years ago. Did they have no time between writing Cornhusker Kickbacks and other parochial pork to notice their bill lacked an appropriation for, oh, say, $135 billion?

Democrats Are Sabotaging Themselves on Obamacare

Having first sabotaged Obamacare through their own incompetence, Democratic leaders in the House—bless their hearts—thought it would be a good idea to use the troubled law to give the President even more authority. In a little-noticed development the week before the election, Nancy Pelosi and 10 leading House Democrats filed an amicus curiae brief in an ongoing lawsuit regarding the cost-sharing reductions. The brief justified the cost-sharing payments by claiming “everyone understood” the law included an appropriation, even though the bill’s actual text did no such thing—“We meant to include it, honest we did!”

More importantly, the lawmakers’ brief claimed Congress has little judicial recourse should the executive exceed its authority. Pelosi wrote that not one but both chambers of Congress must initiate a suit seeking to protect the legislature’s prerogatives—which would, due to the Senate filibuster, effectively subject all such suits to a supermajority 60-vote margin in that body. Likewise, the belief that Congress should pass corrective legislation rather than initiating legal action would effectively give the President a veto over any attempt to constrain his power, necessitating a two-thirds majority to clip his wings.

One would have thought that submitting a legal brief giving the executive such broad power one week before last November’s election might have given Nancy Pelosi pause. Pelosi may have been “with her,” but—surprise, surprise!—the voters had other designs. And now Pelosi and her Democratic colleagues could find themselves in a dilly of a pickle.

Obamacare Set A Horrible Precedent

To use but the most obvious example, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi’s strong objections meant this April’s omnibus spending bill did not include funding for the Trump Administration to complete a border wall. But under the rubric laid out in the lawmakers’ amicus brief last October, President Trump doesn’t need such an appropriation—he can invent one out of whole cloth, and Congress would lack the power to stop him from spending money not appropriated.

Therein lies the danger presented by the Obamacare payment precedent. President Obama’s Justice Department and House Democrats both argued that the structure of Obamacare implies an appropriation that does not exist—giving future Presidents an opening to invent appropriations on any subject upon which Congress has previously opined. And with both the Obama Administration and Democratic lawmakers asserting that Congress’ failure to prohibit such spending permits the President to do so, only a supermajority of lawmakers could prohibit virtually unchecked spending by the executive.

In their attempt to justify their slapdash Obamacare legislating, Democrats have laid the legal groundwork for future administrations to create appropriations where none exist—we literally have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it. While Democrats’ inability to include a 12-figure appropriation in a 2700-page bill doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in the legislative process, the answer lies not in yet another executive power grab of the kind Pelosi endorsed last fall. Democrats can whine about Trump’s supposed “sabotage” of Obamacare all they want, but their sabotage to our system of checks and balances would be far worse.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Conservatives’ Choice: Power or Principle?

In the days immediately preceding and following the November 8 election, I observed a distinct evolution in thinking among some rightist thinkers. Some went into the election pledging an outright rebellion in the Senate should a Majority Leader Chuck Schumer use the “nuclear option” to muscle through a Hillary Clinton Supreme Court nominee, but mere days later thought that a Majority Leader Mitch McConnell should consider abolishing the filibuster to allow President Trump’s nominee a smoother path to confirmation.

One couldn’t help but hold on to one’s neck for the bad case of whiplash. Some who proudly defended the filibuster as a bastion of deliberative legislating when they feared Democrats would win the White House and take back the Senate suddenly, instead, when presented with a Republican Senate and president-elect, considered this principle a trifling inconvenience. Those situational ethics present a more fundamental question: Are conservatives willing to forego policy “victories” that might result from a raw use of power, when exercising that power violates critical philosophical principles rooted in a belief in limited government?

That’s one prism through which to view Kellyanne Conway’s announcement that the Trump administration may not enforce Obamacare’s individual mandate. Besides the fact that non-enforcement presents policy problems and makes repeal of Obamacare less likely, it violates a principle at the heart of conservatism: The rule of law.

Not Within the Law

The new president’s executive order on Obamacare, released Friday evening, instructed executive agencies to take actions “to the maximum extent permitted by law” to blunt the effects of Obamacare. There are indeed many ways the Trump administration can act within the scope of existing law to provide relief to consumers, many of which I outlined in a report last week. But blanket non-enforcement of the individual mandate doesn’t qualify as being within the law, any more than President Obama’s policy of blanket non-enforcement for certain classes of immigrants fit within statutory parameters.

Observers have noted the last administration’s many examples of executive overreach on Obamacare have given the new administration grounds to provide regulatory relief on multiple fronts. But two wrongs do not make a right. Take, for instance, the following analysis:

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.

The quote comes from a paper by University of Michigan professor Nicholas Bagley, talking about President Obama’s 2013 “transitional policy” that allowed people facing cancellation notices to temporarily keep their pre-Obamacare plans. But the same description could apply to not enforcing the individual mandate as well. Conservatives believe that forcing individuals to purchase a product is unconstitutional—but so is an executive refusing to enforce the law. Is the answer to a constitutional violation really another constitutional violation?

Major Practical Concerns

Not enforcing portions of Obamacare also presents logistical questions. Effectively eliminating the individual mandate through non-enforcement could worsen adverse selection—when only sick individuals purchase coverage, raising premiums and driving out additional healthy enrollees. As I noted last week, the new administration does have ways within the law to mitigate against this particular problem, but it remains to be seen how effective they will be.

In many cases, non-enforcement could result in lawsuits. The Obama administration’s unilateral actions generally led to more people getting benefits—insurance subsidies, immigration status, etc.—which made it difficult to find someone with standing to sue.

By contrast, if the Trump administration decides (as some have suggested) to give insurers permission to sell policies that do not meet all of Obamacare’s mandated benefits, purchasers of said policies would have grounds to sue insurers. Obamacare’s mandated benefits are prescribed in law, and if the law is clear, its text trumps (pardon the pun) any regulatory edict from the new administration. Most insurers probably wouldn’t even bother offering such policies because of the legal jeopardy and uncertainty they would face in doing so.

Making Repeal Less Likely?

There’s another practical implication of not enforcing the mandate that should worry conservatives: ironically, it could make Obamacare’s repeal more difficult.

Over the past few weeks Washington has debated whether Congress should repeal Obamacare without enacting a simultaneous replacement. Some pundits have been forthright in admitting that they wish to do so because they fear some members of Congress have a different vision of what an alternative regime should look like. To put it bluntly, they wish to hold repeal hostage to their vision for an Obamacare “replacement.”

The executive unilaterally ending some of Obamacare’s worst effects—albeit temporarily—will take the pressure off members of Congress to do so themselves. The justifiable fear is that action on repeal will get bogged down by internecine squabbling over a vision for “replace,” making the sole movement on Obamacare an executive action—which any future president (or even the current one) could overturn.

Reinforce Congress’ Role

If President Trump unilaterally eliminating the individual mandate isn’t the answer, then what is? For conservatives, the solution should lie with the branch the Constitution’s Framers considered the most important: Congress, the legislative branch Article I of the Constitution establishes. Through its oversight powers, Congress has the ability to investigate and act upon regulatory overreach.

The last Congress was less feckless in blunting unilateral executive actions than some might think. Its preliminary victory in the case of House v. Burwell, regarding Obamacare’s cost-sharing subsidies to insurers, set a critical precedent that Congress has the right to litigate on matters of constitutional import—namely, the executive (in this case, the Obama administration) spending funds without an express appropriation from Congress. Hopefully the Trump administration will vacate the Obama administration’s appeal of the District Court ruling, allowing this precedent to stand.

Congress should continue to use its investigatory powers to explore executive overreach. It should obtain from the Trump administration documents regarding the cost-sharing subsidies that the Obama administration refused to disclose, despite subpoenae from Congress ordering them to do so. These documents will reveal why and how the Obama administration created an appropriation these subsidies out of whole cloth. More importantly, continuing to investigate the lawless actions of the Obama administration will send a clear message to dissuade its successors from acting similarly.

Obamacare Is Ultimately About Power

Obamacare was really never about health care so much as power—the power of government to regulate health care, tax health care, and force people to purchase health care (or at least health insurance). It seems somehow fitting that Obamacare gave the nation so many examples of executive unilateralism.

But to conservatives, the rule of law—in many ways the antithesis of raw power—stands pre-eminent. A Republican administration should not be tempted to “use unilateral actions to achieve conservative ends.” Such behavior represents a contradiction in terms. That’s why it’s important to watch the new administration’s actions closely in the coming days and weeks. Obamacare may not be worth keeping, but the rule of law is.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Obamacare Meets Monty Python

“’Tis but a scratch!”

So insists the knight after King Arthur cuts off his left arm in the movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail. When Arthur severs his right arm and begs him to surrender, the obstreperous knight again refuses: “Just a flesh wound,” he claims.

Given the disastrous rollout of Obamacare, one could easily conflate Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ performance on Capitol Hill recently with Python’s knight scene. Secretary Sebelius had no explanation for what has caused the massive technological failures behind the law’s exchanges, didn’t explain how they would be fixed—and didn’t say who would be held to account for failing to get the implementation right.

In fact, when asked by one Congressman whether the President himself was “ultimately responsible” for the healthcare.gov fiasco, Sebelius responded, “Whatever.”

It’s not the first time Secretary Sebelius has shown such insouciance. “No one is getting fired” over the exchanges’ myriad problems, she claimed last Thursday. She went on to say that “the majority of people calling for me to resign…are people I don’t work for.” This from a public servant receiving a salary of nearly $200,000 per year funded by all federal taxpayers!

The President himself is also in denial about the train wreck unfolding before him. Hours after Sebelius’ testimony, the President pooh-poohed the news that millions of Americans will need to shop for new health insurance after losing their current coverage due to Obamacare. In a speech in Boston, the President tried to blame insurance companies for cancelling policies—due to requirements his administration put into place. In other words, “Nothing to see here. Move it along.”

The President also claimed that individuals losing their current plan will get “a better deal.” However, a recent Heritage Foundation study found that the law will raise premiums in the exchanges in 45 states, in some cases causing rates to more than double. So much for the promise of “bending the cost curve down.”

It’s worth pondering why the left—from President Obama on down—seems unwilling to admit any problem with the law, either in its policy or in its implementation. When Nancy Pelosi famously said Congress had to pass the bill so that we could find out what’s in it, she wasn’t just admitting that she and her colleagues hadn’t read the bill they voted on. She was also implying that—unlike the “visionary” leaders of the left—most Americans simply couldn’t appreciate the true wonder and beauty of Obamacare until we experienced it.

It’s that type of patronizing liberalism—don’t worry about a thing, we know what’s best for you—that led people like Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., to claim three years ago that Obamacare would “become more and more popular” once the law passed. It’s what led President Obama to tell Charlie Rose last year that his biggest fault was not any errant decision on policy, but rather failing to “tell a story” to the American people.

Yet the stories of the past month demonstrate a wholesale failure of the entire Obamacare scheme. It’s not just the technology behind the exchanges—although that is a mess. It’s also the people losing their coverage, and the people who won’t be able to afford new policies.

Obamacare is a 2,700-page reminder of Reagan’s famous dictum that the nine most terrifying words in the English language are “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.” When an entire law is based on those nine words, and isn’t working in the least, the only rational move is to stop the law. Alternatively, one could simply go full Monty Python.

In the Holy Grail, the knight meets an ignominious end. His arms and legs severed, he continues to howl into the wind: “I’m invincible!” The knight’s triumphalist rhetoric has echoed through the Obama administration in recent days. But for both the limbless knight and Obamacare, the facts speak otherwise.

This post was originally published at the National Interest.

Yet Another Poll Shows Obamacare’s Unpopularity

While most reporters have focused on its conclusions regarding the presidential race, the latest NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll also includes survey data on the health care law.  Only 34% of Americans now think Obamacare was a good idea – that’s down from 38% from May 2010, just after the law was passed.  And by a 46% to 40% plurality, Americans support the law’s repeal; fully 36% of Americans strongly support repealing Obamacare.

There was another revealing question included in the survey:  A whopping 11% of Americans think passing Obamacare has been “the most positive accomplishment of the Obama Administration.”  That means that even Obama’s political base is more enthused by his other “accomplishments” than the President’s efforts to ram through the massive 2700 page, $2.6 trillion health care law.  So much for the claims made last year that “As people learn about the bill…it’s going to become more and more popular….Those who voted for health care will find it an asset, those who voted against it will find it a liability…”

Democrats Man the Obamacare Lifeboats

The past several weeks have seen several indications of just how willing and eager Democrats – including the President himself – have become to distance themselves from the unpopular, 2700-page health care law:

  • Bloomberg ran a story last week about how President Obama is afraid to talk about Obamacare to average voters; he mentions the law at political fundraisers, but “he’s just not making the sales pitch in public.”  Even liberals have been flummoxed by the President’s silence on Obamacare; one asked rhetorically, “Why not just own it?”
  • Former Senator Blanche Lincoln blasted the Administration for having “4,200 pages of pending, new regulations to be put on the books that just create huge uncertainty.”  She also sounded skeptical of Obamacare: “We have to be willing to look as we make this journey in health care, not only what we’ve done that’s good, but that things that are not going to work.”  Of course, as many would note, Lincoln voted for Obamacare, and thus bears responsibility for the more than 10,000 pages (NOT a mere 4,200 pages) of new federal regulations and notices that have been issued since March 2010 implementing the law’s mandates and requirements.
  • Two weeks ago, five Democrat Senators wrote to the Administration asking for another Obamacare waiver, finally conceding that the law “may cause disruption for farmers and others in the agricultural sector” by causing members of farmer co-operatives to lose their current coverage.  Among the signatories was New York’s Chuck Schumer, who just last March was claiming that “As people learn about the bill…it’s going to become more and more popular….Those who voted for health care will find it an asset, those who voted against it will find it a liability.”  By asking for a waiver, Schumer has now admitted Obamacare is a political liability for him, because as his constituents learned more about the bill, they found out they could lose their current health insurance coverage thanks to a law he voted for.
  • The most recent Kaiser health tracking poll found that only a bare majority of Democrats (52%) approve of the law, and that approval among Democrats dropped by 13 points in just one month.

Last year Speaker Pelosi famously said we had to pass the bill to find out what’s in it.  More than one year later, many Democrats are finally finding out what’s in the law, and have discovered that they don’t like it any more than Republicans do.

Obamacare Failing to Meet Struggling Americans’ Expectations

Most of the news surrounding the latest Wall Street Journal-NBC News poll has centered around its findings for the presidential campaign – but the survey also revealed some interesting results on the health care front.  Specifically, the survey asked “which one personal worry for you and your family is greatest right now?”  Health care topped the list, at 33 percent, (marginally) ahead of jobs at 32 percent.  And by an over two-to-one margin, respondents found that the Obama Administration had failed to live up to its expectations on health care – only 31% said Obama had met expectations on health care, compared to 64% who said he had fallen short.  Of particular note is the fact that the “meet expectations” number fell 8 points since August 2010, while the number of Americans believing Obama has fallen short on health care has risen by 9 percentage points.  (So much for the claims by Senator Schumer and others that “Now that the bill is enacted, it’s going to become more and more popular.”)

Of course, the American people have every reason to believe that the Obama Administration has not lived up to expectations on health care – because it hasn’t.  To use but one prominent example, candidate Obama said repeatedly his bill would CUT premiums by an average of $2,500 per family – meaning premiums would go DOWN, not merely just “go up by less than projected.”  The campaign also promised that that those reductions would occur within Obama’s first term.  However, the annual Kaiser Foundation survey of employer-provided insurance found that average family premiums totaled $12,860 in 2008, $13,375 in 2009, and $13,770 in 2010 and $15,073 this year.  In other words, while candidate Obama promised premiums would fall by $2,500 on average, premiums have already risen by $2,213 during the Obama Administration.

One of the prime reasons Americans cited health care as their largest personal worry is skyrocketing costs.  Campaign rhetoric aside, Obamacare did precious little to reduce cost growth – spending will actually rise thanks to the law, as will premiums.  It’s one of the most damaging of all the broken promises made by the President on health care, one which will hit millions of struggling families directly in the wallet.

“Thanks Obamacare?” Law’s Popularity at an All-Time Low

In the same week in which activists launched a new “Thanks Obamacare” campaign, this month’s Kaiser Family Foundation health tracking poll explains one reason for the liberal PR re-launch – the 2,700 page law is even less popular than ever.  Among the results from the poll’s summary and toplines:

  • Overall favorability of the law stands at 34%, an all-time low;
  • The percentage of very favorable support stands at 12%, an all-time low;
  • The percentage of respondents who think they personally will be better off due to the law stands at a mere 18%, an all-time low;
  • The percentage of respondents who think the country as a whole will be better off due to the law stands at 28%, an all-time low;
  • Approval of the law among Democrats dropped by 13% in the last month to only 52%, an all-time low.

In other words, eighteen months after Senator Schumer and others claimed that “Now that the bill is enacted, it’s going to become more and more popular,” Obamacare suffered its worst month of polling ever.  It’s one more sign that the only bipartisan element of Obamacare has been the opposition to it.