Tag Archives: veterans

The “Technical” Amendment That Could Affect Millions of Veterans’ Health Coverage

As the House of Representatives steamrolls toward a vote tomorrow on Republicans’ “repeal-and-replace” legislation, lawmakers weighing their vote may wish to consider a few key questions—such as:

  • How did an ostensibly “technical” amendment end up withdrawing refundable tax credits from up to seven million veterans?
  • Does Donald Trump—who released a specific plan early in his campaign to “ensure our veterans get the care they need wherever and whenever they need it”—realize the potentially broad-ranging effects of this “technical” amendment on veterans?
  • And what other supposedly “technical” language will turn out to have unintended consequences should House Republicans rush to put this legislation on the statute books without fully digesting its effects?

Conservatives have their own (justifiable) concerns with the underlying substance of the new tax credit entitlement, but this “technical” amendment provides a microcosm of the problems that result when legislators rush to judgment based on arbitrary deadlines. Just as with Obamacare itself, lawmakers may find they have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it.

The Issue

As I explained last week, the original House bill had a potentially fatal flaw in its tax credit “firewall.” Specifically, language designed to ensure individuals with other forms of health insurance—such as Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare, and VA coverage—did not receive the credit touched upon other committees of jurisdiction in the Senate, such as Armed Services and Veterans Affairs. Under budget reconciliation procedures, a committee—the Senate Finance Committee, in this instance—cannot include subject matter outside its own jurisdiction; doing so could cause the entire bill to lose its procedural privilege as a reconciliation measure.

Due to these procedural concerns, the House released a technical amendment late Monday evening that, according to a summary, “includes the technical restructuring of the new tax credit made as a result of Senate guidance to maintain the privilege of the bill.” However, in restructuring the credit, staff—whether by accident or design—ended up eliminating eligibility for an entire class of veterans.

Pages 97-98 of the original House bill included specific language stating that veterans eligible for, but not enrolled in, VA health benefits would qualify for the credit:

‘‘(2) SPECIAL RULE WITH RESPECT TO VETERANS HEALTH PROGRAMS.—In the case of other specified coverage described in paragraph (1)(F) [i.e., VA coverage], an individual shall not be treated as eligible for such coverage unless such individual is enrolled in such coverage.

However, the “technical” amendment released Monday evening strikes that language. The replacement language, on pages 9-10 of the amendment, states that individuals qualify for the credit only if they are “not eligible for” other types of coverage, including VA coverage:

‘‘(2) The individual is not eligible for—
‘‘(A) coverage under a group health plan (within the meaning of section 5000(b)(1)) other than coverage under a plan substantially all of the coverage of which is of excepted benefits described in section 9832(c), or
‘‘(B) coverage described in section 5000A(f)(1)(A) [which includes VA coverage]

The revised language therefore means that individuals eligible for, but not enrolled in, VA coverage cannot qualify for the new insurance subsidies created by the bill.

The Impact

The most recent estimates suggest about 9.1 million individuals are enrolled in VA health programs. However, a 2014 Congressional Budget Office score of veterans’ choice legislation concluded that “about 8 million [veterans] qualify to enroll in VA’s health system but have not enrolled.” Subtracting for VA enrollment gains since that CBO score leaves approximately seven million veterans eligible for, but not enrolled in, VA health programs, and thus potentially affected by the House’s “technical” change.

At least some of those seven million veterans eligible for but not enrolled in VA health programs may not qualify for the House’s new insurance subsidies for other reasons. For instance, some of those seven million veterans may have other forms of health coverage—from a current or former employer, Medicare, Tricare, etc.—that would render them ineligible for the credit regardless of their VA status.

However, given a universe of seven million veterans potentially affected by the changes, doubtless many veterans would be actually affected by the House language. And as a policy matter, it is unclear why the revised House language, by cutting off access to the credit for those eligible for but not enrolled in VA coverage, seeks to direct more people into a government-run VA health system still suffering from the effects of the wait time reporting scandal.

The Fallout

It is possible, and perhaps even probable, that this “technical” change—which in reality could affect millions of veterans—was entirely unintentional in nature, caused by harried, sleep-deprived congressional staff rushing to complete work on the bill. But it raises the obvious question: What other changes, tweaks, errors, or other unintended consequences might such rushed legislation contain?

We’ve seen this show before. In 2010, the text of Obamacare as passed failed to make clear that VA and Tricare coverage qualified as minimum benefits—making soldiers and veterans subject to taxes for violating the law’s individual mandate. Because of that drafting error, Republicans forced a vote on exempting soldiers and veterans from the mandate, before the issue was eventually resolved.

This week’s “technical” amendment, with potentially wide-reaching implications, reprises the errors of Obamacare, and demonstrates the dangers of House Republicans’ rushed strategy. With a highly compressed timetable seemingly dictating the entire process, unforced errors seem almost inevitable. President Trump has made clear his desire to move to tax reform as soon as possible—but how would he defend disqualifying up to seven million veterans from the bill’s tax credits?

Once finding out about the effects of this “technical” amendment, House leadership will quite probably move to change it—and fast. But what about the other “technical” problems lurking in the bill? Given the rushed process, doubtless more of these “bugs” and “glitches” exist. Who will find them—and when? What if they aren’t found until after the measure’s enactment, and then can’t be fixed legislatively? Lawmakers should think long and hard about these unintended consequences before they vote to assume responsibility for them for a long time to come.

Summary of House Republicans’ Managers Amendment

UPDATE: On March 23, the Congressional Budget Office released an updated cost estimate regarding the managers amendment. CBO viewed its coverage and premium estimates as largely unchanged from its original March 13 projections. However, the budget office did state that the managers package would reduce the bill’s estimated savings by $187 billion — increasing spending by $49 billion, and decreasing revenues by $137 billion. Of the increased spending, $41 billion would come from more generous inflation measures for some of the Medicaid per capita caps, and $8 billion would come from other changes. Of the reduced revenues, $90 billion would come from lowering the medical care deduction from 7.5 percent to 5.8 percent of income, while $48 billion would come from accelerating the repeal of Obamacare taxes compared to the base bill.

Updated ten-year costs for repeal of the Obamacare taxes include:

  • Tax on high-cost health plans (also known as the “Cadillac tax”)—but only through 2026 (lowers revenue by $66 billion);
  • Restrictions on use of Health Savings Accounts and Flexible Spending Arrangements to pay for over-the-counter medications (lowers revenue by $5.7 billion);
  • Increased penalties on non-health care uses of Health Savings Account dollars (lowers revenue by $100 million);
  • Limits on Flexible Spending Arrangement contributions (lowers revenue by $19.6 billion);
  • Medical device tax (lowers revenue by $19.6 billion);
  • Elimination of deduction for employers who receive a subsidy from Medicare for offering retiree prescription drug coverage (lowers revenue by $1.8 billion);
  • Limitation on medical expenses as an itemized deduction (lowers revenue by $125.7 billion)
  • Medicare tax on “high-income” individuals (lowers revenue by $126.8 billion);
  • Tax on pharmaceuticals (lowers revenue by $28.5 billion);
  • Health insurer tax (lowers revenue by $144.7 billion);
  • Tax on tanning services (lowers revenue by $600 million);
  • Limitation on deductibility of salaries to insurance industry executives (lowers revenue by $500 million); and
  • Net investment tax (lowers revenue by $172.2 billion).


Original post follows:

On the evening of March 20, House Republicans released two managers amendments to the American Health Care Act—one making policy changes, and the other making “technical” corrections. The latter amendment largely consists of changes made in an attempt to avoid Senate points-of-order fatal to the reconciliation legislation.

In general, the managers amendment proposes additional spending (increasing the inflation measure for the Medicaid per capita caps) and reduced revenues (accelerating repeal of the Obamacare taxes) when compared to the base bill. However, that base bill already would increase the deficit over its first five years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Moreover, neither the base bill nor the managers amendment—though ostensibly an Obamacare “repeal” bill—make any attempt to undo what Paul Ryan himself called Obamacare’s “raid” on Medicare, diverting hundreds of billions of dollars from that entitlement to create new entitlements. Given this history of financial gimmickry and double-counting, not to mention our $20 trillion debt, some conservatives may therefore question the fiscal responsibility of the “sweeteners” being included in the managers package.

Summary of both amendments follows:

Policy Changes

Medicaid Expansion:           Ends the enhanced (i.e., 90-95%) federal Medicaid match for all states that have not expanded their Medicaid programs as of March 1, 2017. Any state that has not expanded Medicaid to able-bodied adults after that date could do so—however, that state would only receive the traditional (50-83%) federal match for their expansion population. However, the amendment prohibits any state from expanding to able-bodied adults with incomes over 133% of the federal poverty level (FPL) effective December 31, 2017.

With respect to those states that have expanded, continues the enhanced match through December 31, 2019, with states receiving the enhanced match for all beneficiaries enrolled as of that date as long as those beneficiaries remain continuously enrolled in Medicaid. Some conservatives may be concerned that this change, while helpful, does not eliminate the perverse incentive that current expansion states have to sign up as many beneficiaries as possible over the next nearly three years, to receive the higher federal match rate.

Work Requirements:           Permits (but does not require) states to, beginning October 1, 2017, impose work requirements on “non-disabled, non-elderly, non-pregnant” beneficiaries. States can determine the length of time for such work requirements. Provides a 5 percentage point increase in the federal match for state expenses attributable to activities implementing the work requirements.

States may not impose requirements on pregnant women (through 60 days after birth); children under age 19; the sole parent of a child under age 6, or sole parent or caretaker of a child with disabilities; or a married individual or head of household under age 20 who “maintains satisfactory attendance at secondary school or equivalent,” or participates in vocational education.

Medicaid Per Capita Caps:              Increases the inflation measure for Medicaid per capita caps for elderly, blind, and disabled beneficiaries from CPI-medical to CPI-medical plus one percentage point. The inflation measure for all other enrollees (e.g., children, expansion enrollees, etc.) would remain at CPI-medical.

Medicaid “New York Fix:”               Reduces the federal Medicaid match for states that require their political subdivisions to contribute to the costs of the state Medicaid program. Per various press reports, this provision was inserted at the behest of certain upstate New York congressmen, who take issue with the state’s current policy of requiring some counties to contribute towards the state’s share of Medicaid spending. Some conservatives may be concerned that this provision represents a parochial earmark, and question its inclusion in the bill.

Medicaid Block Grant:        Provides states with the option to select a block grant for their Medicaid program, which shall run over a 10-year period. Block grants would apply to adults and children ONLY; they would not apply with respect to the elderly, blind, and disabled population, or to the Obamacare expansion population (i.e., able-bodied adults).

Requires states to apply for a block grant, listing the ways in which they shall deliver care, which must include 1) hospital care; 2) surgical care and treatment; 3) medical care and treatment; 4) obstetrical and prenatal care and treatment; 5) prescription drugs, medicines, and prosthetics; 6) other medical supplies; and 7) health care for children. The application will be deemed approved within 30 days unless it is incomplete or not actuarially sound.

Bases the first year of the block grant based on a state’s federal Medicaid match rate, its enrollment in the prior year, and per beneficiary spending. Increases the block grant every year with CPI inflation, but does not adjust based on growing (or decreasing) enrollment. Permits states to roll over block grant funds from year to year.

Some conservatives, noting the less generous inflation measure for block grants compared to per capita caps (CPI inflation for the former, CPI-medical inflation for the latter), and the limits on the beneficiary populations covered by the block grant under the amendment, may question whether any states will embrace the block grant proposal as currently constructed.

Implementation Fund:        Creates a $1 billion fund within the Department of Health and Human Services to implement the Medicaid reforms, the Stability Fund, the modifications to Obamacare’s subsidy regime (for 2018 and 2019), and the new subsidy regime (for 2020 and following years). Some conservatives may be concerned that this money represents a “slush fund” created outside the regular appropriations process at the disposal of the executive branch.

Repeal of Obamacare Tax Increases:             Accelerates repeal of Obamacare’s tax increases from January 2018 to January 2017, including:

  • “Cadillac tax” on high-cost health plans—not repealed fully, but will not go into effect until 2026, one year later than in the base bill;
  • Restrictions on use of Health Savings Accounts and Flexible Spending Arrangements to pay for over-the-counter medications;
  • Increased penalties on non-health care uses of Health Savings Account dollars;
  • Limits on Flexible Spending Arrangement contributions;
  • Medical device tax;
  • Elimination of deduction for employers who receive a subsidy from Medicare for offering retiree prescription drug coverage;
  • Limitation on medical expenses as an itemized deduction—this provision actually reduces the limitation below prior law (Obamacare raised the threshold from expenses in excess of 7.5% of adjusted gross income to 10%, whereas the amendment lowers that threshold to 5.8%);
  • Medicare tax on “high-income” individuals;
  • Tax on pharmaceuticals;
  • Health insurer tax;
  • Tax on tanning services;
  • Limitation on deductibility of salaries to insurance industry executives; and
  • Net investment tax.

“Technical” Changes

Retroactive Eligibility:       Strikes Section 114(c), which required Medicaid applicants to provide verification of citizenship or immigration status prior to becoming presumptively eligible for benefits during the application process. The section was likely stricken for procedural reasons to avoid potentially fatal points-of-order, for imposing new programmatic requirements outside the scope of the Finance Committee’s jurisdiction and/or related to Title II of the Social Security Act.

Safety Net Funding:              Makes changes to the new pool of safety net funding for non-expansion states, tying funding to fiscal years instead of calendar years 2018 through 2022.

Medicaid Per Capita Cap:   Makes changes to cap formula, to clarify that all non-Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) supplemental payments are accounted for and attributable to beneficiaries for purposes of calculating the per capita cap amounts.

Stability Fund:          Makes technical changes to calculating relative uninsured rates under formula for allocating Patient and State Stability Fund grant amounts.

Continuous Coverage:         Strikes language requiring 30 percent surcharge for lack of continuous coverage in the small group market, leaving the provision to apply to the individual market only. With respect to the small group market, prior law HIPAA continuation coverage provisions would still apply.

Re-Write of Tax Credit:      Re-writes the new tax credit entitlement as part of Section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code—the portion currently being used for Obamacare’s premium subsidies. In effect, the bill replaces the existing premium subsidies (i.e., Obamacare’s refundable tax credits) with the new subsidies (i.e., House Republicans’ refundable tax credits), effective January 1, 2020.

The amendment was likely added for procedural reasons, attempting to “bootstrap” on to the eligibility verification regime already in place under Obamacare. Creating a new verification regime could 1) exceed the Senate Finance Committee’s jurisdiction and 2) require new programmatic authority relating to Title II of the Social Security Act—both of which would create a point-of-order fatal to the entire bill in the Senate.

In addition, with respect to the “firewall”—that is, the individuals who do NOT qualify for the credit based on other forms of health coverage—the amendment utilizes a definition of health insurance coverage present in the Internal Revenue Code. By using a definition of health coverage included within the Senate Finance Committee’s jurisdiction, the amendment attempts to avoid exceeding the Finance Committee’s remit, which would subject the bill to a potentially fatal point of order in the Senate.

However, in so doing, this ostensibly “technical” change restricts veterans’ access to the tax credit. The prior language in the bill as introduced (pages 97-98) allowed veterans eligible for, but not enrolled in, coverage through the Veterans Administration to receive the credit. The revised language states only that individuals “eligible for” other forms of coverage—including Medicaid, Medicare, SCHIP, and Veterans Administration coverage—may not qualify for the credit. Thus, with respect to veterans’ coverage in particular, the managers package is more restrictive than the bill as introduced, as veterans eligible for but not enrolled in VA coverage cannot qualify for credits.

Finally, the amendment removes language allowing leftover credit funds to be deposited into individuals’ health savings accounts—because language in the base bill permitting such a move raised concerns among some conservatives that those taxpayer dollars could be used to fund abortions in enrollees’ HSAs.

The VA Scandal and Medicare

The federal government adjusts its payment policies, the health-care system tailors its practices to meet those new policies, and a variety of unexpected—and perverse—consequences result.

This isn’t just one aspect of the VA scandal. It also describes the effects of physician payment policies in Medicare.

In the case of the Department of Veterans Affairs, decisions to tie performance bonuses to patient waiting times apparently resulted in attempts to manipulate the appointment system. Incidents reported in Pennsylvania, Wyoming and New Mexico illustrate how compensation and bonuses drove decisions about patient care. The New York Times reported that one Albuquerque whistleblower alleged:

“Clinic staff were instructed to enter false information into veterans’ charts because it would improve the data about clinic availability. . . . The reason anyone would care to do this is that clinic availability is a performance measure, and there are incentives for management to meet performance measures.”

In Medicare, the sustainable growth rate (SGR) mechanism established in 1997 placed an overall cap on physician spending, with an eye toward cutting payments in future years if Medicare spending exceeded the defined thresholds. But this measure, ostensibly to cut costs, only pushed the problem elsewhere. Doctors have responded to the prospect of cuts in reimbursement rates by increasing the volume of services provided. Physician spending per beneficiary increased more than 70 percent from 2000 to 2011, while reimbursement rates grew only 11 percent in the same period. Congress routinely acts to undo the projected reimbursement cuts, and the SGR has not appreciably reduced Medicare’s overall costs.

So how do these stories tie together? Clearly, health-care systems respond to incentives set by the federal government. But Washington has not proved nimble enough to avert the unintended consequences of those responses. While Gen. Eric Shinseki’s resignation as secretary of veterans affairs may stanch the political bleeding for the Obama administration, the underlying problems go far beyond one man—and even the VA. Both issues will take big-picture thinking, and actions, to repair.

This post was originally published at the Wall Street Journal’s Think Tank blog.

IT Failure at the Immigration Courts

One of the most underreported stories in Washington is a massive IT failure—lasting more than a month—that slowed legal proceedings at the nation’s immigration courts.

In its reporting last week, Politico quoted Dana Marks, the president of the National Association of Immigration Judges, describing the work environment: “We are now limping along, keeping the system running with paper clips and scotch tape.  It’s appalling.”

“Look at all the publicity over” HealthCare.gov, Ms. Marks went on. “Shouldn’t this have the same level of outcry and shock?  This is the docketing system for cases involving 360,000 people allegedly in US illegally.  Not all are removable, but it’s a law enforcement function.”

Reports of chaos in the nation’s immigration courts will do little to allay the concerns of House Republicans who think that the Obama administration will not—or cannot—faithfully implement any immigration legislation Congress might pass.

The immigration courts’ IT meltdown–the Justice Department announced Monday that the electronic databases that went offline April 12 are functioning again–represents another prominent example of botched implementation by federal agencies. It comes amid congressional inquiries into allegations of mismanagement and misconduct at the Department of Veterans Affairs. And the Washington Post reported this week on another facet of the troubled launch of HealthCare.gov: “The government may be paying incorrect subsidies to more than 1 million Americans for their health plans in the new federal insurance marketplace and has been unable so far to fix the errors.”

President Obama came into office attempting to restore faith and trust in government. Individually and collectively, these competency difficulties can only detract from his objective.

This post was originally published at the Wall Street Journal’s Think Tank blog.

How Obamacare Is Bad for Veterans — And the Economy

This morning the Wall Street Journal runs a story featuring comments by the influential Chairman of the New York Fed, William Dudley.  When asked in a speech yesterday about how the health care law will affect the economy, he said the law will cause “uncertainty” which will cause “people to be more cautious in terms of their behavior” – meaning businesses may not hire new workers due to the prospect of more than $500 billion in tax increases and mountains of new federal health care regulations.

Separately, the Daily Caller has an op-ed outlining how the law harms the troops – from the tax on medical devices to the lack of an SGR fix (TriCare utilizes Medicare reimbursement rates for most services, meaning veterans will also be harmed by the 30% physician pay cut coming at the end of the year) to the doctor shortages caused by the addition of 30 million newly insured Americans.

At a time when unemployment remains near record-high levels, passing a law that causes businesses not to hire undermines the prospects for future growth (even if the President believes his economic team is doing a “heckuva job.”)  Similarly, when our nation remains at war, passing a law that will adversely impact troops and veterans returning home from battle sends the wrong message to America’s soldiers.

Coburn Amendment 3700 to H.R. 4872 — Veterans’ Second-Amendment Rights

Senator Coburn has proposed an amendment (#3700) to the Health Care Reconciliation Bill, H.R. 4872, to ensure that no veterans be denied their Second Amendment rights without due process.  This amendment is identical to S. 669, the Veterans 2d Amendment Protection Act.


  • This bill requires no veterans be denied their Second Amendment rights without due process.
  • Specifically, veterans who are considered mentally incompetent for purposes of assigning benefit payments, may not be considered “adjudicated as a mental defective” unless they have been found by a judicial authority to be a danger to themselves or to others.
  • Currently, these veterans are immediately considered “adjudicated as a mental defective” and lose their rights to possess and purchase firearms even though they are no danger to themselves or others.


  • According to CRS, Over 140,000 veterans have been added to a national database of those prohibited from owning or purchasing a firearm.
  • This bill is endorsed by the American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, AMVETS, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, Gun Owners of America, the NRA, and the National Alliance on Mental Illness.
  • S. 669 is a bipartisan measure, Senator Jim Webb is one of the original cosponsors.

Faces of Health “Reform:” Who Will Be Hurt by Obamacare?

Faces of health reform: who will be hurt by this bill?

Small businesses

  • According to the New York Times,[i] the President promised small business owner Patty Briguglio, shown at right, that “the tax credits would more than offset any tax increases.”  Patty has 19 employees now and gives them an allowance to purchase health insurance.  If she does well and her business expands to 50 or more employees, she will have to pay a $2,000 per employee tax if even one of her employees gets a subsidy in the exchange, even if she continues to provide this allowance.
  • Other small business owners such as a trucking company that employs more 150 workers and offers affordable health insurance today may not be able to afford government-approved health insurance in 2014 and will drop coverage and be forced to pay the mandate tax.
  • This tax will raise $52 billion to help pay for this bill.[ii]
  • For two years, small businesses could receive a complicated and temporary credit to cover 50 percent of the premium costs of their workers.  This credit is no longer available after 2016, but business owners like Patty would face the fine in perpetuity.
  • CBO has said that costs associated with the employer mandate will be shifted to workers in the form of lower wages, fewer jobs, or more part-time jobs at the expense of full-time jobs.[iii]


  • The single group that pays the most for this health care bill is America’s senior citizens, who will face $529 billion in cuts to the Medicare program.
  • These cuts are being made to finance an expansion of Medicaid and a brand new entitlement that goes directly from the federal treasury to insurance companies to help people buy mandated health insurance.
  • $120 billion in Medicare Advantage cuts will affect nearly 11 million seniors and cause enrollment to decline by 33 percent.[iv]
  • According to CBO, eliminating the Part D coverage gap, or “doughnut hole,” would cause a 50 percent spike in average Part D premiums.[v]

Wounded Warriors

  • The bill imposes a 2.3 percent tax on medical devices with a  narrow list of exceptions.
  • Wheelchairs, crutches, hospital beds, MRI machines, and a long list of other devices would be taxed, resulting in job losses for manufacturers and higher costs for all Americans who use these devices.
  • No exceptions were provided for America’s veterans, who have sacrificed honorably.  The costs of treating these wounded warriors will go up as all medical devices will be more expensive.
  • American vets are also provided no assurance that their current coverage qualifies as government-approved coverage, meaning they could be forced to give up the coverage they currently have to comply with the mandate.


  • This picture of little Madeline was taken last year at a protest in Washington, D.C., when total gross debt was more than $38,000 per American.
  • If you take out the gimmicks used to hide the true cost of health reform, the bill adds another $618 billion to the deficit over its first 10 years.[vi]
  • This debt will be financed by foreign nations and paid for by future generations of Americans.
  • Madeline already owes $38,375 of the national debt, but if the President’s FY11 budget is enacted, by the time she is a teenager she will owe more than $70,000 to China and other creditors.[vii]

Americans with insurance

  • Americans who are currently insured will pay higher indirect taxes on medical devices, pharmaceuticals, and their health insurance plans.
  • The bill imposes a 40 percent excise tax on family health insurance plans that cost more than $27,500 a year.
  • CBO shows that premiums for Americans in the large group market will continue to rise $1,000 a year under the health care bill, no different than the estimate without reform.[viii]


  • Because the subsidy level for a two-person family is less than twice the level for a single person, getting married will mean that two people who previously received a subsidy will lose that subsidy simply by getting married.
  • Two individuals earning $130,000 separately would face higher taxes on their income and savings if they got married because their combined income would be more than the $250,000 family threshold for the investment tax.
  • These perverse, anti-family incentives punish people for getting married.
  • This bill adds new indirect taxes on more than 73 million households earning less than $200,000 a year, raising the prices of insurance, pharmaceuticals, and medical devices.[ix]


  • By expanding eligibility standards for Medicaid, health reform imposes billions in new costs for states, which will be forced to expand their already over-burdened state Medicaid program.  Tennessee Democratic Governor Phil Bredesen has called this the “mother of all unfunded mandates,”[x] and Democratic Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe said he would have voted against the bill because of its effect on states.[xi]
  • The head of Washington state’s Medicaid program believes that states facing severe financial distress may say, “I have to get out of the Medicaid program altogether.”[xii]
  • California’s Governor said he believes health reform will impose $3 billion in new costs on the state.[xiii]
  • Backroom deals to benefit certain states like Connecticut will be paid for by taxpayers in other states.


  • In order to finance their unpopular health care proposals, Democrats have staged a government takeover of student loans that would turn the U.S. Department of Education into one of the nation’s largest banks.
  • Approximately $9 billion in education savings from this government takeover will be diverted from students to help pay for the cost of the Obama Administration’s health care proposal.[xiv]
  • Health care reform is being financed on the backs of American students.

Young people

  • Insurance carriers will not be able to vary premiums by age by more than 3 to 1 (i.e., charge older individuals no more than three times what younger, lower-risk applicants would pay).  While this concept sounds appealing, it will push up prices for young people in order to cut premium rates for older Americans.
  • Average premiums for individuals aged 18-24 are currently nearly one-quarter the average premiums paid by individuals aged 60-64.[xv]  As a result, the very narrow age variations allowed under the new law will function as a significant transfer of wealth from younger to older Americans—and by raising premiums for young and healthy individuals, may discourage their purchase of insurance.
  • Harvard Professor Kate Baicker’s analysis demonstrates that at least 5.5 million low-wage workers would be “at substantial risk of unemployment” due to new mandates on employers—and that workers under age 35 are 50 percent more likely to be threatened with job loss than their older counterparts.[xvi]

Burr Amendment 3652 to H.R. 4872 — TRICARE/VA and Individual Mandate

Senator Burr has proposed a first-degree amendment (#3652) to the Health Care Reconciliation Bill, H.R. 4872, to clarify that beneficiaries of Tricare or Veterans health care programs meet the individual mandate requirement of the health care Act with that coverage.


Amendment Terms

  • The amendment clarifies that beneficiaries of Tricare or Veterans health care programs meet the individual mandate requirement of the health care Act with that coverage.
  • The amendment also provides that all VA and DOD health care programs are to remain intact with their benefits unaffected by the health care Act.


  • Section 1501 of the health care bill provides the individual mandate, requiring that all lawful residents purchase qualified insurance coverage or pay a penalty.
  • To be sure, the bill provides that certain government sponsored programs meet the requirement to maintain “minimum essential coverage,” namely Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, Tricare for Life, and “the Veteran’s health care program” under Title 38 Chapter 17.
  • It is of some question, however, whether all those who receive health care as a military or veteran benefit would meet this requirement.
    • For example, Representative Ike Skelton, the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said during the House’s consideration of the Senate health care bill, “Although the health care legislation passed by the House explicitly exempted TRICARE from being affected, the Senate bill did not.”
  • The entire House apparently had this fear for all military families, veterans, and their dependents, because it rushed through on Saturday by a unanimous vote the Tricare Affirmation Act, HR 4887, which amended the health care bill it was about to pass on Sunday to clarify that health care coverage provided by the Tricare program shall constitute minimal essential health care coverage required by the health care Act.
  • In explaining his amendment, Senator Burr asserted that this quick fix may not make clear that all Tricare and Veterans health programs satisfy the individual mandate.  For example, he mentioned a Veterans Spina Bifida program under Title 38 Chapter 11, which would not be captured by the terms of the health care Act that is now law.
    • In interpreting legislation, courts oftentimes rely upon a canon of construction that expressio unius est exclusion alterius, where the expression of a list of items of an associated group or series is meant to exclude other items left unmentioned.
    • As noted in the second bullet above, the health care Act provides a list of government programs providing that if someone has health coverage under one of those programs that person meets the “minimum essential coverage” requirement.
    • The Veterans Spina Bifida program would not be on that list.
    • It is also unclear, for example, if the fix-it language of the Tricare Affirmation Act covers CHAMPVA (Civilian Health and Medical Program), a program providing benefits to the surviving spouse or child of a veteran who died from a service-connected disability, as well as to spouses and children of veterans rated permanently and totally disabled from a service-connected disability.
  • There is little guidance on when a legislative list is meant to be exhaustive as opposed to illustrative.  United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 65 (2002).  This amendment removes that guesswork, making it plain and unambiguous that Tricare and all VA health care programs satisfy the individual mandate.
  • Democrats assert this reconciliation bill is the opportunity to correct unacceptable elements of the Senate health care bill.  It should certainly be unacceptable that the Senate bill does not make clear that Tricare and VA health care coverage satisfies the individual mandate.
  • If this amendment is not adopted, it would not be clear that Tricare or VA health program beneficiaries comply with the individual mandate of the health care Act.  If they do not, and those beneficiaries do not bring themselves into compliance with this demand by 2014, they would face a penalty.  If any of that penalty falls on a service member or Veteran not making at least $250,000 per year, this would violate the pledge of candidate Obama that his tax plans “will not raise any tax rate on families making less than $250,000 per year, period!”
  • Voting against this amendment could potentially subject active duty service members and veterans health care beneficiaries to penalties for failure to comply with the individual mandate.