Many state lawmakers are concerned that if their states accept Obamacare grant funding, they will be implementing policies counter to the states’ best interests. In any battle, it is wise to pick targets strategically. Obamacare is a many-headed monster—its funding is not one block grant. Conservatives should focus on refusing federal funding for elements of Obamacare that are integral to the legislation’s design and have significant policy consequences—while giving lower priority to funding that doesn’t meet both of those tests. The Obamacare grant programs now attracting the most attention are …
Yesterday, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released its proposed regulations for the Obamacare version of health insurance exchanges. State lawmakers are a key audience for these regulations, which is why HHS wrapped its announcement in talk of “state flexibility.” In truth, the proposed regulations don’t give states any additional flexibility beyond what they are permitted under Obamacare anyway, and in some places they may further limit state lawmakers’ options. For example, state lawmakers are particularly concerned about how Obamacare gives the exchanges control over Medicaid eligibility. Some …
In a classic case of the “Friday afternoon news dump,” last week the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that it is closing the process to apply for a waiver to Obamacare’s annual limits provision in September. Both the timing and substance of this decision confirm that HHS’s annual limit regulations and the decision to grant waivers was a public relations strategy gone bad. Friday’s announcement was little more than a move by the Obama Administration to limit further damage from a self-inflicted wound.
The principal issue addressed in Federal District Court Judge Roger Vinson’s ruling Monday on the case of Florida vs. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is the application of the Constitution’s “interstate commerce” clause with respect to Obamacare’s individual mandate. But two other parts of his ruling send an important judicial “tough love” message to state and federal lawmakers that the courts cannot—and should not attempt to—solve their political and policy problems for them. In the case of state lawmakers, Judge Vinson dismissed the states’ argument that the federal …
On the eve of the scheduled vote in the U.S. House of Representatives on a bill to repeal Obamacare, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a report yesterday entitled: “At Risk: Pre-Existing Conditions Could Affect 1 in 2 Americans: 129 Million People Could Be Denied Affordable Coverage Without Health Reform.” The report’s “findings” are misleading and wildly inaccurate. The report implies that without Obamacare’s prohibition on insurers applying preexisting-condition exclusions, nearly half of the entire U.S. population would be at risk of being denied health insurance because …
Yuval Levin has made the important point that, when HHS granted waivers exempting some employer health plans from Obamacare’s prohibition on annual benefit limits, it was the “kind of government by whim, and not by law” that is “the essence of the regulatory state.” It is indeed a very troubling effect, and one that will be a byproduct of numerous other Obamacare provisions as well. That said, it is worth noting that the “McDonald’s issue” also highlights the ignorance and incompetence behind the crafting of this health-care legislation. As to …
The inability of some Americans to obtain health insurance for pre-existing medical conditions continues to be used by Obamacare supporters as justification for the mammoth legislation. The truth, however, is that the problem was nowhere near as big as portrayed, and the solution doesn’t require 2700 pages of legislation or $1 trillion in new government spending. Over 90 percent of Americans with private health insurance are covered by employer group plans where existing rules governing the application of pre-existing condition exclusions are not an issue. Before passage of Obamacare, the …
The U.S. Senate is currently debating H.R. 4872, which amends the Obamacare bill passed by the House Sunday evening and signed into law by the President on Tuesday. This second piece of legislation is advertised as necessary to “fix” problems with the basic Obamacare legislation — such as by deleting the notorious “Cornhusker Kickback” and by altering the timing and scope of the new penalty tax on “high-cost” health insurance plans. However, other parts of H.R. 4872 actually make the original bill worse — for example, the provision that would …
The pending health care legislation would cover the uninsured mainly by dumping most of them into the federal/state Medicaid program. Not surprisingly, many states have objected to the additional costs that such a Medicaid expansion would impose on their taxpayers. Indeed, that was the motivation behind the infamous “Cornhusker Kickback” in the Senate bill, under which the Federal government would pick up all of Nebraska’s Medicaid expansion costs in perpetuity. In response to complaints from governors and state lawmakers, coupled with public outrage over the “Cornhusker Kickback,” section 1201 of …
The White House has just issued an 11 page concept paper (PDF) for yet another health care bill that, among other items, includes a proposed new Federal “Health Insurance Rate Authority.” The Administration has yet to provide any legislative language on how this new Federal regulatory regime would operate, but based on statements by the President and other officials, as well as similar provisions included in the bills already passed by the House and Senate, there is good reason for concern as to whether the President and Congress really know …
