• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Obamacare vs. the Rule of Law

    On September 30th, Janet Adamy reported for The Wall Street Journal that McDonald’s was considering canceling its health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers unless new Obamacare regulations were waived. The White House pushed back hard with U.S. Department of Health and Human Services spokeswoman Jessica Santillo claiming: “This story is wrong. The new law provides significant flexibility to maintain coverage for workers.” But this Tuesday we learned that Adamy was correct. According to Bloomberg News McDonald’s had sought, and eventually won, a waiver from the upcoming Obamacare regulations. This allows them to continue providing health insurance coverage to 115,000 workers. In fact, McDonald’s workers were just some of the over 1 million of Americans who were spared losing their current health care coverage thanks to one-year waivers from the Obama HHS.

    The White House effort to discredit reports that Obamacare is forcing companies to consider dropping health care coverage comes on the heels of a letter HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sent to the nation’s health insurers threatening to exclude them from the yet to be implemented Obamacare health exchanges.  The letter warned there “will be zero tolerance” for “falsely blaming premium increases” on Obamacare. And who would determine if premium increases were or were not due to Obamacare? The Obama administration of course. When it comes to the health care sector, Obamacare has turned Secretary Sebelius into judge, jury, and executioner. And we are just beginning to witness the scope of Obamacare’s bureaucratic powers.

    There are over 1,000 instances in the more than 2,700 page bill where Congress granted the Secretary of HHS new powers to regulate the health care industry. For example, the power to determine what does or does not count as a medical expense alone will decide the fate of many health insurance firms. Galen Institute Trustee John Hoff warned in a recent Heritage Foundation memo:

    The Adminis­tration’s vision of health care is based on the premise that the federal government can—and must—control the details of health care financing and delivery across the country. … Enactment of PPACA is the first step to this control; the law must be implemented by administrative action. While it is detailed in some instances, PPACA is largely aspi­rational; it directs the Administration to achieve various universally desired goals—better quality of health care, improved access to care, and increased efficiency of delivery. It constructs the scaffolding of federal control and gives the Administration very broad authority to achieve these aspirations. Each of the many actions taken to implement it will determine the shape of that control. Implementation will be technically diffi­cult and politically charged.

    PPACA is based on the premise that the federal government can—and must—regulate the details of the health care financing and delivery systems. With its enactment, health care has been thor­oughly bureaucratized—since it must be imple­mented by public servants—and politicized by the Administration and Congress. Bureaucratization and politicization are the inevitable characteristics of government action.

    As Hillsdale College Associate Professor of Political Science Ronald Pestritto has also written for Heritage, Obamacare’s elevation of bureaucrats over the rule of law is exactly what our Founding Fathers were trying to prevent:

    The Founders understood that there are two fundamental ways in which government can exercise its authority. The first is a system of arbitrary rule, where the government decides how to act on an ad hoc basis, leaving decisions up to the whim of whatever official or officials happen to be in charge; the second way is to implement a system grounded in the rule of law, where legal rules are made in advance and published, binding both government and citizens and allowing the latter to know exactly what they have to do or not to do in order to avoid the coercive authority of the former.

    Through Obamacare, progressives wanted to redistribute wealth through a distant, patronizing welfare state that regulates more and more of the economy, politics and society. The question Americans face is: Are we a country ruled by law or by bureaucrat?

    Posted in Obamacare [slideshow_deploy]

    20 Responses to Obamacare vs. the Rule of Law

    1. Paul, Albany NY says:

      I agree with your remarks and would only emphasize that this is not an academic argument about constitutional theory. Considering the sheer size of the health care industry – - 16% of our economy and is projected to hit 20% in the foreseeable future – - ObamaCare is revealed as a power grab of colossal proportions.

    2. Leon from Redding CA says:

      There is a solution for employers who aren’t blessed by a Secretary Sebelius waiver and are being forced to drop employee coverage. Simply switching them to LyfeBank accounts will allow family members or part time workers to pool employer funds from each job into employee-owned accounts to buy health insurance and pay for medical expenses, all with pretax dollars. Visit LyfeBank.com to see how this works.

    3. stephanie says:

      No one disagrees the Health Care Reform Act that passed was so watered down from the original that it has to be tweaked. Any policy of this size will have to be adjusted as we move forward.

      Government, as well as it's communities and citizens are living and breathing organisms and as such, never static.

      What Obama is rightfully doing now is called cooperation and compromise. Something the GOP is loathe to comprehend.

    4. Mike S says:

      A one-year waiver continues the uncertainty that is causing employers to scale back hiring. How can they know if they will receive the waiver again next year or not?

      What would have happened to McDonald's request for a waiver if McDonald's had been a major Republican donor?

    5. Fred, FightObamaland says:

      We have to pass the bill so you can see what's in the bill. Now shut up you coward, racist, Islamaphobic, Homophobes.

    6. Billie says:

      Enforce the rule of law. Why the exception? Enforce the rule of law! This health care "reform" is deceptive and not acceptable! It has been from the start and only grew worse. Repeal this healthcare trap to take-over!

      America is for the self-sufficient which American leadership should be incentively encouraging to decrease unconstitutional government dependency.

      There are fair, common sense, sound solutions that respect health care to be the rightful privacy and individual responsibility that Obama refuses to support or take into account! Please stop this!

      The cost of observed incompetence and obvious consequences isn't worth the invasion of personal health and the collapse of the economy and removal of free choice!

      Repeal this take-over! Open the free markets with less the government mandates, fees, taxes and penalties. Stop government's deliberate acts to malfunction private health care businesses and corrupt the people.

    7. Pingback: The Patriot's Flag » Illegal Obamacare Waivers?

    8. john b says:

      I'm reminded of the scene in The Fly "Be afraid. Be very afraid…"

    9. Ace Sez Bishop, Cali says:

      I hope that all you ppl that voted for this commie bastard have realized that voting has consequences—and rue the day you voted emotionally for the cool black

      man in the White house,

      Lets hope the tea party candidates rule with common sense once in office–Remember November–fight crime and vote out all incumbents–both parties

    10. Steve, Ohio says:

      Stephanie, you obviously missed the entire point of this article. The rule of law is that Congress makes the laws, not the Executive or the Judical. What Congress did was pass a shell of a bill so that the details of the law (which is really all that matters in the end) could be made up by the Obama Adminstration. This Administration remains oblivious to the process that the Constitution says about how laws are made, so to characterize these actions as "cooperation and compromise" is pure folly. It is more like "I don't care what anybody else wants, I'm getting what I want and doing it my way, rules be damned". It's really humorous in the funny pages when Calvin and Hobbes play "CalvinBall", but when our real-world government starts making up rules as they go along, and in the process assume power it doesn't have the authority to have, it's time to say and DO something about it.

    11. Brad, Detroit, MI says:

      Stephanie. Please rejoin us in the real world. This "waiver" was only granted due to the fact this is an election year. The point of the disastrous bill is to eventually go to a single-payer system. If you get all employers to dump their health insurance, forcing their employees into an exchange controlled by the Federal Government, you are one step closer to their goal : Govt controlled Health Care. Once they control your health care – they control you. Don't be ignorant.

    12. Jill, California says:

      What waiver do I get as a self-employed person who must buy her own health insurance?

      My rates have gone up twice in the last year to pay for the harmful effects of Obamacare. I'd be far better off financially to drop my insurance and buy in only if I get hurt and need expensive medical care. But my sense of integrity and personal responsibility is bigger than my bank account.

    13. Dennis Georgia says:

      The rule of law, and common since is lacking in the White House and Congress. America is not am socialist country, it is not a country that soaks the citizens of their wealth. Those that want to work, improve the standard of living are rewarded. Those that want to depend on the "guvment" for all the want and need are wrong. Get of you a$$ and get a job, sure it may pay $20.00 and hour, but get what is there and work toward a better job.

    14. richard40 says:

      So everybody that works for McDonalds, and presumably countless other US companies, is now dependent on the willingness of an Obama administration burocrat to extend the one year waiver to get health care. So anytime they wish, they can deny the waiver, for whatever capricious reason they wish, such as not donating enough to dems, or too much to repubs, or making public statements that Obama does not like, angering Obamas union buddies, angering the NAACP or Jesse Jackson, etc. And for you dems, in the future, will you want your health care to depend on the political whims of a future repub administration?

      This is totally capricius tyranny. No wonder so many US companies are not investing or hiring because of future uncertainty. This contemptable health care law must be repealed immediately. It is the worste case of socialist power grabbing in several generations. Any politician who voted for it should be imediately voted out, and never hold another office again.

    15. Tom Palmieri USA says:

      Maybe if we went after the corporations that are responsible for the declining health in America, we would find the funds necessary to pay for the result of the consumer consumption of those products.

      McDonalds super sizes, Burger King doubles up, KFC geases the grease Etc.

      They knowingly contribute to disease's such as obesity and diabetes by enticing families with the allure of "Value"

      For a few pennies more you get a bigger bang for your buck.

      Alcohol distributors knowingly provide products, again known to cause diabetes, drunk driving deaths, liver disease and mental disease. They say it is a persons "choice" to drink responsibly, yet alchohol is proven to be one of the most addictive drugs available over the counter and those who are addicted don't feel they have a "choice".

      Cigarettes and Cigar manufactureres knowingly market products that cause lung cancer. The governement sued them and won, but because the tobacco industry is so big, the government deemed them "Too large to fail" and agreed to let them manufacture and distribute so long as they paid individual states millions of dollars in healthcare related fines.

      And all of the above are allowed to proceed due to our civil right to "freedom of choice" that allows us to make our own decisions, not government.

      So, my thought is: if people want to have the right to choose consuming the products of their choice, I'm all for that. But, I don't want to be the one responsible for their poor decisions.

      If they choose to ingest something that is proven to cause a negative physical reaction, I think they should contribute more to the insurance pool than I, who chooses to live a healthy lifestyle.

      Afterall, they're going to be seeing the doctor more than I will.

      So in order for them to pay their fair share, I say:

      Put a 5.00 tax on a pack of cigarettes, 10.00 tax on a six pack of bear, and if you say "Supersize Me" at the drive up window, expect to pay another 6.00.

      There are solutitions to healthcare, and if both politial parties would stop campaigning and start listening to what "we the people" have to offer, maybe some ideas like the one discussed above would gain merit among a host of other ideas where a real healthcare plan would emerge.

    16. John Zavgren, Wilton says:

      arbitrary rule?

      What about George Bush's war of choice against Iraq? He lied to the American people about weapons of mass destruction and untold numbers of innocents died. Isn't this a perfect shining example of arbitrary rule?

      Furthermore, I find the fact that this blog uses the term Obamacare offensive. Why not use the actual terms: healthcare, and healthcare reform?

    17. Annie Hamilton, Los says:

      lied about weapons of mass destruction? you have NO clue what you're talking about (stay off of the libtard blogs for a spell and give your brain cells a chance to breathe) in addition, stay on topic. this is regarding Obamacare (calling it health care reform or health care is RETARDED)

      try to keep up.

    18. Bobbie says:

      John Zavgren you write: What about George Bush’s war of choice against Iraq? He lied to the American people about weapons of mass destruction and untold numbers of innocents died. Isn’t this a perfect shining example of arbitrary rule?

      Only if this is the way you believe it to be. Mr. Bush didn't lie. He was given information and reacted to it for the safety of the American people. As 19 terrorists from the middle east, used American aircraft as weapons against Americans and the innocence thereof, who would be so trusting there isn't weapons of mass destruction?

      John Zavgren, writes: Furthermore, I find the fact that this blog uses the term Obamacare offensive. Why not use the actual terms: healthcare, and healthcare reform?

      Why not have a name that describes it? With penalties, mandates, rules and regulations, obvious consequences that complicates and increases needless burdens unnecessarily, doesn't make it healthcare or healthcare reform. It makes it obamacare! Your intolerance shows weakness and is offensive.

    19. Pingback: Obamacare vs. the Rule of Law #healthcare | MediBlog

    20. fashionmomentl, shen says:

      That's another words. We have heared that so much. It's no use…Not like that I see. so nice….

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×