Alternative to #ObamaCare

From Ramesh Ponnuru and Yuval Levin, at the Wall Street Journal, "A Conservative Alternative to ObamaCare":

As ObamaCare's failures and victims mount by the day, Republicans have so far mostly been watching in amazement. They expected the law to fail, but even among its most ardent opponents few imagined the scale and speed of the fiasco.

Seeing the pileup, Republicans might be tempted to step aside and let ObamaCare continue to disappoint and infuriate Americans. After all, the GOP doesn't have the power to repeal the law, or even to make meaningful changes to undo its worst effects. So why not just watch the Democrats pay the price for their folly?

But such passivity would actually protect the Democrats from paying that price. What Republicans can and should do is offer the public something better. Now is the time to advance a conservative reform that can solve the serious, discrete problems of the health-care system in place before ObamaCare, but without needlessly upending people's arrangements or threatening what works in American medicine. That the Democrats are now making things worse doesn't mean the public wants to keep that prior system, or that Republicans should.

The biggest Republican misconception about health care is that the system before ObamaCare was a free-market paradise. On the contrary: It has consisted chiefly of massive and inefficient entitlements that threaten to bankrupt the nation; the lopsided tax treatment of employer-provided coverage that creates incentives for waste and overspending; and an underdeveloped individual market struggling to fill the gaps.

Exploding health-care costs and millions left needlessly uninsured are a result of misguided federal policies. Solutions require targeted reforms to those policies.

The outlines of such reforms have been apparent for years. The key is to enable all Americans to purchase coverage and to approach health care as consumers: with an interest in quality and an eye on cost.

The first step of a plan to replace ObamaCare should be a flat and universal tax benefit for coverage. Today's tax exclusion for employer-provided health coverage should be capped so that people would not get a bigger tax break by buying more extensive and expensive insurance. The result would be to make employees more cost-conscious; and competition for their favor would make insurance cheaper.

That tax break would also be available—ideally as a refundable credit sufficient at least for the purchase of catastrophic coverage—to people who do not have access to employer coverage. This would enable people who now choose not to buy insurance to get catastrophic coverage with no premium costs. It also would give those who want more-comprehensive coverage in the individual market the same advantage that people with employer plans get.

Medicaid could be converted into a means-based addition to that credit, allowing the poor to buy into the same insurance market as more affluent people—and so give them access to better health care than they can get now.

All those with continuous coverage, which everyone could afford thanks to the new tax treatment, would be protected from price spikes or plan cancellations if they got sick. This guarantee would provide a strong incentive to buy coverage, without the coercion of the individual mandate. People who have pre-existing conditions when the new rules take effect would be able to buy coverage through subsidized, high-risk pools.

By making at least catastrophic coverage available to all, and by giving people such incentives to obtain it, this approach could cover more people than ObamaCare was ever projected to reach, and at a significantly lower cost.

The new alternative would not require the mandates, taxes and heavy-handed regulations of ObamaCare. It would turn more people into shoppers for health care instead of passive recipients of it—and encourage the kind of insurance design, consumer behavior and intense competition that could help keep health costs down. Redesigned and directed this way, the flow of federal dollars and tax subsidies would do much less to distort health markets than it has for the last several decades, while getting far more people insured...

Click through at Google to read the whole thing.

We're Witnessing the #ObamaCare Death Spiral in Real-Time

As always, the editors at the Wall Street Journal have nailed the administration's deceit and incompetence. See, "Obama Repeals ObamaCare."

Read the whole thing, but note especially these two paragraphs:

The only political explanation for relaxing enforcement of the individual mandate—even at the risk of destabilizing ObamaCare in the long term—is that the White House is panicked that the whole entitlement is endangered. The insurance terminations and rollout fiasco could leave more people uninsured in 2014 than in 2013. ObamaCare's unpopularity with the public could cost Democrats the Senate in 2014, and a GOP Congress in 2015 could compel the White House to reopen the law and make major changes.

Republicans ought to prepare for that eventuality with insurance reforms beyond the "repeal" slogan, but they can also take some vindication in Thursday's reversal. Mr. Obama's actions are as damning about ObamaCare as anything Senator Ted Cruz has said, and they implicitly confirm that the law is quarter-baked and harmful. Mr. Obama is doing through executive fiat what Republicans shut down the government to get him to do.

And as noted earlier, this latest "fix" creates huge incentives for individuals to avoid buying health insurance (and some of the already uninsured may create fake cancellation documents to take advantage of the changes), and thus we're really watching the opening moments of the much-predicted ObamaCare death spiral. See also Megan McArdle, at Bloomberg, "Obamacare Initiates Self-Destruction Sequence":

I’m not sure the administration is thinking that far ahead. The White House is focused on winning the news cycle, day by day, not the kind of detached technocratic policymaking that they, and the law’s other supporters, hoped this law would embody. Does your fix create problems later, cause costs to spiral or people to drop out of the insurance market, or lead to political pressure to expand the fixes in ways that critically undermine the law? Well, that’s preferable to sudden death right now.

However incoherent these fixes may seem, they send two messages, loud and clear. The first is that although liberal pundits may think that the law is a done deal, impossible to repeal, the administration does not believe that. The willingness to take large risks with the program’s stability indicates that the administration thinks it has a huge amount to lose -- that the White House is in a battle for the program’s very existence, not a few marginal House and Senate seats.

And the second is that enrollment probably isn’t what the administration was hoping. I don’t know that we’ll start Jan. 1 with fewer people insured than we had a year ago, but this certainly shouldn’t make us optimistic. It’s not like people who lost their insurance due to Obamacare, and now can’t afford to replace their policy, are going to be happy that they’re exempted from the mandate; they’re still going to be pretty mad. This is at best, damage control. Which suggests that the administration is expecting a fair amount of damage.

Still more at that top link (via Memeorandum).

The ObamaCare death spiral occurs when so few young people sign up for insurance that the system's structure of subsidies for older, less healthy consumers fails to operate correctly. This is why the Wall Street Journal argues, among others, that last night's "fix" will only cause insurance companies to jack up rates to cover losses. (And as McArdle notes, insurance companies will be even more entitled to a government bailout on their losses through the law's "risk corridors"). Folks have been warning about this "death spiral" for months.

It's still early, of course. But no doubt the White House is utterly panicked. It's a virtually certainly that more changes will be unveiled, perhaps more deadlines pushed back to minimize the Democrats' political losses next year. But by now only the most hackneyed ideological reprobates are defending the law anymore. Democrats can't run away from it fast enough and across the netroots regressive leftists are whining about how all they really wanted was "single-payer" (socialized medicine) in the first place. These people are idiots and moral retards. They deserve the political backlash now hammering them on the heads, and all the more that's likely over the next year. Screw 'em. God willing, the voters will crush the radical left for a generation or more.

Leftists Smear Stage-4 Cancer Survivor Whose Insurance Plan Was Curb-Stomped Under #ObamaCare

It was inevitable.

Leftists will stop and nothing to destroy grassroots resistance to the ObamaCare monstrosity. Still, even this latest smear is lower than the lowest of the leftist-regressive low.

At Twitchy, "Despicable: WH smears cancer survivor who lost her insurance plan due to Obamacare." Plus, "Dana Perino slams WH with advice to shameful cancer victim-blaming Dan Pfeiffer."

Yep, this goes right to the top. See James Taranto, at WSJ, "How Low Can They Go? The White House Attacks a Cancer Patient":

It's been just over a month since ObamaCare's disastrous launch, and it's just over three years until the scheduled election of Barack Obama's successor. It's going to be a long three years. The exposure of Obama's signature "achievement" as both incompetent and fraudulent (with its economic inviability yet to be realized) is also showing the administration's true face. It is an ugly one, and we can expect to see a lot more of it while Obama remains in office.

This morning the White House went on the attack against a cancer patient who is also a victim of ObamaCare. Edie Littlefield Sundby of San Diego explains in today's Wall Street Journal that she's been managing a case of stage 4 gallbladder cancer, an affliction whose five-year survival rate is just 2%. Having survived the diagnosis by seven years so far, she beat very long odds--and she did so with the help of an excellent insurance plan that covered care at three hospitals, two in California and one in Texas.

In touting ObamaCare, Obama asserted at least two dozen times (in slightly varying language) that if you like your health plan, you can keep it. As Sundby explains, she is a victim of Obama's fraudulent sales pitch:

Since March 2007 United Healthcare has paid $1.2 million to help keep me alive, and it has never once questioned any treatment or procedure recommended by my medical team. The company pays a fair price to the doctors and hospitals, on time, and is responsive to the emergency treatment requirements of late-stage cancer. Its caring people in the claims office have been readily available to talk to me and my providers.

But in January, United Healthcare sent me a letter announcing that they were pulling out of the individual California market. The company suggested I look to Covered California starting in October.

Covered California is the state ObamaCare exchange, one of those that, unlike the administration-built federal one, has some degree of technical functionality. Thus Sundby was able to log in and check out her options, which--contrary to Obama's "new and improved" sales pitch, that people whose policies are canceled will get better insurance--were unsatisfactory. No plan available to her would cover both her primary-care doctor at the University of California, San Diego, and her oncologist at Stanford. Sundby asks: "What happened to the president's promise, 'You can keep your health plan'? Or to the promise that 'You can keep your doctor'? Thanks to the law, I have been forced to give up a world-class health plan. The exchange would force me to give up a world-class physician." This morning Dan Pfeiffer the fast-talking flack tweeted out a piece from ThinkProgress.org, a leftist propaganda outfit. Titled "The Real Reason That the Cancer Patient Writing in Today's Wall Street Journal Lost Her Insurance," the piece, by one Igor Volsky, claims that "Sundby shouldn't blame reform." Volsky instead blames United Healthcare, which, he writes, "dropped her coverage because they've struggled to compete in California's individual health care market for years and didn't want to pay for sicker patients like Sundby":

"The company's plans reflect its concern that the first wave of newly insured customers under the law may be the costliest," UHC Chief Executive Officer Stephen Helmsley told investors last October. "UnitedHealth will watch and see how the exchanges evolve and expects the first enrollees will have 'a pent-up appetite' for medical care. We are approaching them with some degree of caution because of that."

Get that? The company packed its bags and dumped its beneficiaries because it wants its competitors to swallow the first wave of sicker enrollees only to re-enter the market later and profit from the healthy people who still haven't signed up for coverage.

Sundby is losing her coverage and her doctors because of a business decision her insurer made within the competitive dynamics of California's health care market.

All this may be true, but it begs the question. The addition of a phrase to that last sentence shows why: Sundby is losing her coverage and her doctors because of a business decision her insurer made within the competitive dynamics of California's health care market under the regulatory structure established by Obama's comprehensive "reform." Obama did not qualify his pitch by stating that if you like your health plan, you can keep it unless your insurer makes a business decision to the contrary within the competitive dynamics of your state's health care market. To the contrary, he represented ObamaCare as protecting consumers from precisely that sort of cruel business decision, and he has not backed away from that fraudulent promise: At a speech last Wednesday, he asserted that the only policies being canceled were "substandard" ones offered by former "bad-apple insurers" whose practices ObamaCare reformed.

There's more at the link.

The lame Volsky piece is pure propaganda. Despicable propaganda at that.

Noel Sheppard offers another takedown at NewsBusters, "Obama Advisor Tweets Far-Left Website's Rebuttal to Cancer Survivor Losing Doctors Due to ObamaCare":

... that a senior White House advisor would disseminate such detritus to rebut the claim of a cancer survivor is deplorable.

Sadly, there is no floor to the depths this administration will sink to defend itself or advance its agenda.

Staggering Democrat douchebaggery.

Sarah Palin: Americans Are Fed Up with #ObamaCare

From Governor Palin, at Big Government, "BOMBS AWAY ON OBAMACARE; CRUZ IS OVER THE TARGET":

Americans who are fed up with Obamacare won a victory yesterday. The House voted to defund Obamacare while still funding the federal government to avoid a “devastating” shutdown. (I shall not digress, but it’s beyond distressing to hear liberals try to convince Americans that any government slowdown is comparable to “terrorism.”)

Now the battle goes to the Senate, and we’ll find out if Harry Reid is so committed to the horrendous “Un-affordable Care Act” that he’ll be the one to shut down the government to fund the unworkable Obamacare.

Let’s be clear. Republicans in Congress aren't advocating a government shutdown. That’s why they voted in the House to fully fund our bureaucracy while defunding Obamacare. The conservatives in Congress are listening to the majority of Americans who do not want Obamacare.

Following the will of the people is apparently a novel idea in D.C. these days. Just ask Senator Ted Cruz and his liberty-loving posse on Capitol Hill who have led the charge to defund Obama’s train wreck.

Those of us who hang in there supporting a major political party with our energy, time, and contributions would like to believe that that party would praise principled conservatives like Ted Cruz and Mike Lee for following through on campaign promises. We’d like to believe that the GOP establishment would applaud the way these bold leaders have rallied the grassroots to their cause. But, no, such praise would require a commensurate level of guts and leadership, and the permanent political class in D.C. is nothing if not gutless and rudderless.

We’re now, once again, subjected to the “anonymous sources” backstabbing game. The Capitol Hill cowards are rushing to anonymously denounce Senator Cruz to any reporter with a pad and pen.

Welcome to our world, Ted. The same people have been denouncing conservatives like me for years (right after they ask for help fundraising for themselves or endorsing the latest candidate they’ve suckered into paying their exorbitant consulting fees). We can compare shiv marks next time we meet, my friend.

Continue reading.

More at Memorandum.

PREVIOUSLY: "'A Vote for Cloture is a Vote for #ObamaCare' — Senator Ted Cruz on Fox News Sunday."

Democrat Gary Peters Threatens TV Station Licenses Over Julie Boonstra #ObamaCare Advertisement

Oh, so the left has to threaten lawsuits to silence a leukemia patient who dared speak out against ObamaCare. It's not like I didn't see this coming, or anything.

From Nice Deb, at Breitbart, "#DemWarOnWomen : Vulnerable Dem In MI Using Lawfare To Silence Cancer Stricken ObamaCare Critic."

And at Twitchy, "#WarOnWomen: ‘Obamacare bully’ Rep. Gary Peters tries to silence mom battling cancer [video]."

Democrat #waronwomen #waronspeech MT @DRUDGE_REPORT Dem threatens TV station licenses over Obamacare ad http://t.co/Fkek7cgdUB

— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) February 22, 2014

SHAME! "@AFPhq: .@RepGaryPeters attacks mother battling cancer who had insurance canceled because of #ObamaCare -> http://t.co/VduOTjY67w"

— Phil Kerpen (@kerpen) February 22, 2014

Dems employ new #Obamacare strategy, anyone who publicly complains will have the heavy-hand of govt unleashed on them http://t.co/RlIZVNCJgv

— Dan Bongino (@dbongino) February 22, 2014

Want to see a #waronwomen? Look what @repgarypeters is doing to this mom fighting cancer, all for speaking out: http://t.co/27HsC9u6rg

— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 22, 2014

You shouldn't be attacked for not being able to afford your high Obamacare deductibles #IAmJulie @RepGaryPeters

— Katy Abram (@katyabram) February 22, 2014

Stop the left from intimidating and threatening this innocent woman for speaking out #WeStandWithJulie @AFP http://t.co/YNbc0I9iej

— Luke Hilgemann (@LHilgemann) February 22, 2014

Like I always say, the left will stop at nothing to silence those who dare get in their way.

Supreme Court's Decison on ObamaCare — A Substantial Win for Conservatives

I mentioned William Jacobson's case already (and Mark Levin's), but here's the conservative case for a political win in yesterday's ObamaCare ruling. From David Horowitz, "Supreme Decision: The Best Possible Result for 2012":

Politically speaking there couldn’t have been a better Supreme Court decision. If Obamacare had been declared unconstitutional, the Democrats’ campaign in November would have been those horrible Republicans have politicized the Supreme Court and denied affordable healthcare to everyone. The focus would be on the court’s “unfairness.” The Democrats would have a plausible if unfair case (and in politics lack of fairness is a given). Advantage Democrats. Advantage because the last things they want to talk about are Obamacare and taxes. And that’s the second big plus from this decision. The focus – thanks to Justice Roberts – is going to be on the biggest tax increase in human history on everyone, not just the rich. And on the lies of Obama which dwarf those of Clinton. Obama promised no tax hikes on the middle class and then defended Obamacare before the Supreme Court as …. a tax.

As for the constitutionalists. Roberts’ argument makes sense to me. Yes the power to tax is the power to destroy, but it’s in the Constitution. So this decision doesn’t really change anything constitutionally. If you don’t like Obamacare, the remedy is to repeal it. Let the elections begin.

And see George Will, at the O.C. Register, "Obamacare Ruling a Substantial Conservative Win":

The court held that the mandate is constitutional only because Congress could have identified its enforcement penalty as a tax. The court thereby guaranteed that the argument ignited by the mandate will continue as the principal fault line in our polity.

The mandate's opponents favor a federal government as James Madison fashioned it, one limited by the constitutional enumeration of its powers. The mandate's supporters favor government as Woodrow Wilson construed it, with limits as elastic as liberalism's agenda, and powers acquiring derivative constitutionality by being necessary to, or efficient for, implementing government's ambitions.

By persuading the court to reject a Commerce Clause rationale for a president's signature act, the conservative legal insurgency against Obamacare has won a huge victory for the long haul. This victory will help revive a venerable tradition of America's political culture, that of viewing congressional actions with a skeptical constitutional squint, searching for congruence with the Constitution's architecture of enumerated powers. By rejecting the Commerce Clause rationale, Thursday's decision reaffirmed the Constitution's foundational premise: Enumerated powers are necessarily limited because, as Chief Justice John Marshall said, "the enumeration presupposes something not enumerated."

I would have preferred personally that Roberts had stood up to the left's bullying and ideological thuggery --- that he would have joined with the four conservatives to strike down the law, as per Anthony Kennedy's words: "In our view, the entire Act is invalid in its entirety." But I'm not going to lament how quickly the decision has energized the conservative base. See Roll Call for more: "Health Care Decision Re-Energizes Tea Party."

Bill Clinton Sticks a Knife in #ObamaCare

From Jonathan Tobin, at Commentary:

The five-year-long dance between the Clintons and President Obama has always been an interesting show, but never more so than now as the runner-up in the 2008 Democratic presidential contest starts to maneuver in preparation for 2016. Hillary Clinton spent her four years as secretary of state playing the good soldier for the president, doing little of value but also (and unlike her spectacularly inept successor John Kerry) causing him little trouble. She exited the cabinet with a presidential love fest that had to annoy Vice President Joe Biden, her only likely rival for 2016. But now that she is safely out of the Washington maelstrom and embarked on a path that she hopes will see her return to the White House as president rather than first lady, her relationship with Obama has undergone a not-so-subtle change. That has allowed some of the old antagonism between her and, in particular, her husband and the man who beat her in 2008 to resurface.

That antagonism was on display today as Bill Clinton joined the growing chorus of critics of the ObamaCare rollout in an interview published in a web magazine. Speaking much as if he was one of the angry red-state Democrats who think the president’s lies about ObamaCare can sink their hopes of reelection next year, the 42nd president stuck a knife into the 44thpresident by saying the law should be changed to accommodate the demands of those who are losing their coverage despite the president’s promises to the contrary:

“I personally believe even if it takes a change in the law, the president should honor the commitment the federal government made to those people and let them keep what they got.”

In doing so, the former unofficial “explainer in chief” for Obama has helped undermine the notion that the president’s signature health-care legislation can be kept intact. But he has also begun the process by which Hillary will begin to disassociate herself from an administration that is beginning to take on the odor of lame-duck failure.

Continue reading.

This has been a very bad day for the White House.

There's so much disastrous news I'm simply gonna have to do a couple of roundups. In addition to Clinton, today saw further Democrat defections on Capitol Hill, particularly Senator Dianne Feinstein, who's apparently ready to join Senator Mary Landrieu for a legislative fix for the millions health plan cancellations nationwide. Also in the news in the new James O'Keefe undercover video that exposes ObamaCare navigators encouraging enrollees to lie on applications. And in a twist that's real-life imitating frat-house parody, progressives out of Colorado are pitching hookup sex and alcohol to promote ObamaCare --- a turn that is nothing less than Democrats embracing rape culture to get "young invincibles" to sign up for the world-class clusterf-k.

See Twitchy, "Sens. Feinstein, Landrieu co-sponsor bill to let people keep their health plans."

More, "‘There’s a new sheriff in town’: James O’Keefe exposes Obamacare navigator fraud [video]," and "Obamacare navigator caught on tape fired; Three others suspended."

And, "Do you got ‘Ho-surance’? ‘Brosurance’ creators branch out, set their sights on lady parts [pics]."

Plus, I sure hope Twitchy does a curation, but Dana Loesch is just destroying idiot leftist Alan Franklin, who I guess is the dolt who created these Colorado ObamaCare ads. Just scroll Dana's timeline to witness a thing of beauty.

The Truth About ObamaCare Rate Increases

At WSJ, "ObamaCare Bait and Switch":

Liberals have spent years claiming that "rate shock" under the Affordable Care Act—the 20% to 30% average spike in insurance premiums that every independent analyst projects—is merely the political imagination of Republicans and the insurance industry. So they immediately claimed victory when California reported last month that the plans that will be available on the state's new insurance exchange next year would be cheaper than they are today.

Except now it emerges that California goosed the data to make it appear as if ObamaCare won't send costs aloft as the law's regulations and mandates kick in. It will, by a lot. And now liberals have suddenly switched to arguing that, sure, insurance will be more expensive but the new costs are justified. Needless to say that was not how Democrats sold health-care reform.

California reported that the rates would range from 2% above to 29% below the current market. "This is a home run for consumers in every region of California," said Peter Lee, the director of the state exchange. "These rates are way below the worst-case gloom-and-doom scenarios we have heard."

But Mr. Lee and his fellow regulators were making a false comparison. They weren't looking at California's lightly regulated individual insurance market that functions surprisingly well. They were comparing ObamaCare insurance to the state's current small-business market where regulations similar to ObamaCare have already been imposed.

In other words, California wasn't comparing apples to apples. It wasn't even comparing apples to oranges. It was comparing apples to ostriches. The conservative analyst Avik Roy consulted current rates on the eHealthInsurance website and discovered that the cheapest ObamaCare plan for a typical 25-year-old man is roughly 64% to 117% more expensive than the five cheapest policies sold today. For a 40 year old, it's 73% to 146%. Stanford economist Dan Kessler adds his observations nearby...

Continue reading.

And the Kessler piece is here, "ObamaCare Is Raising Insurance Costs."

Plus, the epic idiot Ezra Klein's been scrambling to cover for this clusterf-k policy. Here's his latest stupidity, "The six ways Obamacare changes insurance premiums."

See that? How it "changes" premiums? Actually, the law is "raising" premiums. And it's raising premiums on young people to subsidize old people and the sick. And so what happened? Young people bailed. At the Los Angeles Times, "Affordable Care Act's challenge: getting young adults enrolled."

Things aren't going so well for this monstrosity. Not well at all.

The Opening for a Fresh ObamaCare Challenge

From Rivkin and Casey, at the Wall Street Journal:

The court's determination to preserve ObamaCare through "interpretation" has exacerbated the law's original flaws to the point that it has become palpably unworkable. By transforming the penalties for failing to comply with the law's requirements into a "tax," the court has given the public a green light to ignore ObamaCare's requirements when it is economically beneficial. Law-abiding individuals, who might otherwise have complied with the law's expensive purchase mandate to avoid being subjected to financial penalties, can simply now choose to pay a tax and not sign up for coverage. There is certainly no stigma attached to simply paying a tax, and noncompliance with the law's other requirements—such as those imposed on employers—is arguably made more attractive on the same basis. This effect fundamentally undercuts Congress's original purpose, which was to expand health-care coverage to the greatest number of people, not to improve federal revenues.

Similarly, having reviewed the likely costs and benefits, states are now taking advantage of the court-granted flexibility. Seven states, including Texas, Mississippi and Georgia, have so far opted out of the Medicaid-expansion provisions, and eight (with more certain to come) are refusing to create the insurance exchanges, leaving this to a federal bureaucracy unequipped to handle these new administrative burdens. As a result, a growing number of low-income Americans will be unable to obtain the free or cost-effective insurance that Congress originally meant them to have, although they remain subject to the mandate-tax.

Policy problems aside, by transforming the mandate into a tax to avoid one set of constitutional problems (Congress having exceeded its constitutionally enumerated powers), the court has created another problem. If the mandate is an indirect tax, as the Supreme Court held, then the Constitution's "Uniformity Clause" (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) requires the tax to "be uniform throughout the United States." The Framers adopted this provision so that a group of dominant states could not shift the federal tax burden to the others. It was yet another constitutional device that was simultaneously designed to protect federalism and safeguard individual liberty.

The Supreme Court has rarely considered the Uniformity Clause's reach, but it cannot be ignored. The court also refused to impose meaningful limits on Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce for decades after the 1930s, until justices began to re-establish the constitutional balance in the 1990s with decisions leading up to the ObamaCare ruling this summer. And although the court has upheld as "uniform" taxes that affect states differently in practice, precedent makes clear that a permissible tax must "operate with the same force and effect in every place where the subject of it is found," as held in the Head Money Cases (1884). The ObamaCare tax arguably does not meet this standard.

ObamaCare provides that low-income taxpayers, who are nevertheless above the federal poverty line, can discharge their mandate-tax obligation by enrolling in the new, expanded Medicaid program, which serves as the functional equivalent of a tax credit. But that program will not now exist in every state because, as a matter of federal law, states can opt out. The actual tax burden will not be geographically uniform as the court's precedents require.

Thus, having transformed the individual mandate into a tax, the court may face renewed challenges to ObamaCare on uniformity grounds...

RTWT.

Actually, I think the Court will be faced with religious conscience violations before any new Art. I challenges come before it, but this is an interesting piece either way. The PPACA is a motherf-king abomination and should be consigned to the scrap-heap of history, sooner rather than later.

We'll see. Meanwhile, check the additional commentary at Memeorandum.

The ObamaCare Awakening

At the Wall Street Journal, "Americans Are Losing Their Coverage by Political Design":

She didn't know she'd have to pay for it? Well, she does. And so do you. pic.twitter.com/dNBhSElb9e
— Heritage Foundation (@Heritage) October 23, 2013

For all of the Affordable Care Act's technical problems, at least one part is working on schedule. The law is systematically dismantling the individual insurance market, as its architects intended from the start.

The millions of Americans who are receiving termination notices because their current coverage does not conform to Health and Human Services Department rules may not realize this is by design. Maybe they trusted President Obama's repeated falsehood that people who liked their health plans could keep them. But Americans should understand that this month's mass cancellation wave has been the President's political goal since 2008. Liberals believe they must destroy the market in order to save it.

***
Until this month, consumers who weren't insured through their jobs were allowed to buy insurance that provides the best value based on their own needs. One of every 10 private policies is sold through the individual market, covering about 7% of the U.S. population under age 65.

Some states have ruined this market through regulation and price controls, and in others costs can be high. But the individual market works well for millions of people, who can choose from many plans—from Cadillac coverage to cheaper protection against catastrophic illness.

The political problem for the White House is that these choices are a threat to ObamaCare. If too many people keep these policies instead of joining the government exchanges, ObamaCare could fail. HHS has thus reviewed the decisions of people in the individual market and found them wanting. HHS believes as a matter of political philosophy that everyone should have the same kind of insurance, and in the name of equity it wrote rules dictating the benefits that all plans must cover and how they must be financed.

In most cases these mandates are more comprehensive and thus more expensive than the status quo, but the ObamaCare refugees aren't merely facing higher costs. The plans they want and are willing to pay for have been intentionally outlawed. Ponder that one.

Liberals claim the new insurance should cost more because it's better, at least as defined by liberal paternalism. But the real reason they want policies to cost more is to drive as many people as possible out of this market and into the subsidized ObamaCare exchanges.

The exchanges need these customers to finance ObamaCare's balance sheet and stabilize its risk pools. On the exchanges, individuals earning more than $46,000 or a family of four above $94,000 don't qualify for subsidies and must buy overpriced insurance. If these middle-class ObamaCare losers can be forced into the exchanges, they become financiers of the new pay-as-you-go entitlement.

The political press corps is reporting this as a shocking discovery, and we suppose it is if you believed Mr. Obama's promises. NBC News even reports as a "scoop" that the White House knew all along that millions would lose their policies. But HHS's trail of purpose has been there for anyone willing to look.

The text of the Affordable Care Act said that none of its language "shall be construed to require that an individual terminate coverage" that existed as of March 23, 2010, or the date the law was enacted. But as early as June 2010 HHS published a regulation reinterpreting this "Preservation of Right to Maintain Existing Coverage" to obviate that promise.

Even minor policy changes, such as increasing a copay by as little as $5, means that a plan cannot be renewed without rewriting it to obey all of ObamaCare's regulations. In HHS's "regulatory impact analysis" published in the Federal Register, the department estimated that between 40% and 67% wouldn't qualify as a permitted plan, and this was the point—to prevent such policies "from being bought and sold as a commodity in commercial transactions." HHS knew that lightly regulated policies might be popular, especially compared to the restricted choices in the exchanges.

Yep. The Democrats are destroying the private market. That was the plan all along. Healthcare is the road to socialism, although Obama and his regressive allies couldn't sell the policy that way. They had to lie to the American people. The POS legislation would've never passed otherwise.

More at the link.

Republicans Do Have a Plan. That's What Scares Democrats

From David Harsanyi, at the Federalist:

In which I unload both barrels at the Trump & Republican "plan" to replace Obamacare. Here's why: people will die. https://t.co/dqvh6zemd7 pic.twitter.com/fvuMomuxxH

— Nicholas Kristof (@NickKristof) January 5, 2017

"This is a life & death issue..people will die if the #ACA is dismantled" -- CA @RepSpeier to @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/mKCzZiaTPz

— Carla Marinucci (@cmarinucci) January 7, 2017

At SF press conference, CA @RepSpeier vows to "fight w all our might" against GOP and Trump efforts to repeal #ACA

— Carla Marinucci (@cmarinucci) January 7, 2017

"We seem to forget how the insurance companies would manipulate the system to deny coverage- and that all ended w the #ACA" -- @RepSpeier

— Carla Marinucci (@cmarinucci) January 7, 2017

"#MakeAmericaSickAgain is what the PEOTUS and the GOP Congress intend to do" -- @RepBarbaraLee pic.twitter.com/KgyO1SIRIC

— Carla Marinucci (@cmarinucci) January 7, 2017

Dem Leader @NancyPelosi in SF says #ACA fight is "about respecting the dignity" of Americans -- and saving money pic.twitter.com/KOejE5rNet

— Carla Marinucci (@cmarinucci) January 7, 2017

.@NancyPelosi to GOP: "Do they want to go from affordable care to chaos? We just won't let them do that. We just won't let them do that."

— Carla Marinucci (@cmarinucci) January 7, 2017

So #MakeAmericaSickAgain is the slogan Democrats cooked up to oppose Republican health-care reform efforts. That’s because, as you may recall, before 2010 America’s streets were strewn with the bodies of the neglected and dead.

Since Democrats are focusing their campaign on the myth that Obamacare is working for most Americans, it’s imperative they create the impression no viable alternative exists. After all, it’s been nearly a week since the new congressional session started, and Republicans still haven’t produced a comprehensive plan to replace a massive federal health-care law.

The New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof leaves a blank paragraph in his column to illustrate what a Republican “plan” to replace Obamacare will look like, before indulging in the customary “people will die!” scaremongering. (Kristof’s newspaper, by the way, featured a piece headlined “Republicans’ 4-step plan to repeal the Affordable Care Act” the same day his column ran.)

Now, if by “plan,” Kristof is using the contemporary Left’s definition, meaning a expensive, constricting federal regulatory scheme that forces Americans to participate through a series of mandates, then one hopes Republicans never have a “plan.” If the word “plan” still means “a proposal for doing or achieving something,” the GOP have many.

Although there may not be space in either of Kristof’s truth barrels to mention this proposal put forward by the speaker of the House, or the numerous other conservative plans that have been floated, they do exist even if he doesn’t approve. Figuring out a way to turn them into legislation that can pass both houses and meet the approval of a new populist president (who, by the way, isn’t even in office yet) will probably take more than a couple of weeks.

You can have plans. And they can change. I know this because Democrats had many big plans in 2008 but they did not have a finished bill ready to go on day one. This, even though they’d been talking, campaigning, and promising to reform the health-care system for decades. When running for president, Barack Obama (supposedly) opposed the idea of an individual mandate — the device on which Obamacare’s rickety viability hinges — yet it was only later part of the plan. While he was changing his mind, the Senate Finance Committee held 31 meetings to develop Obamacare specifics.

Democrats also had to drop the “public” option and rejigger their abortion coverage to make the bill politically palatable for the moderates in their own party — not the GOP. Even after this the Democrats, who passed the basic structure of Obamacare without having to worry about any Republican opposition, were only later forced to use reconciliation to make it acceptable for the House.

Perhaps Republicans are embracing a newfound competence by avoiding those political pitfalls. Perhaps they’re looking for consensus on timelines and specifics that will make it more feasible. Most likely, it’s going to be messy again. It’s not unprecedented.

Of course politicians grapple with the reality of power. Democrats have grappled with the failure of their policy promises for six years. Krugman, like everyone else perpetuating the myth that there are no replacement plans, act as if coverage can only exist through fake state-run exchanges or welfare.

Don’t worry, though; today’s “they have no plan!” is tomorrow’s “that plan is extremist!”

It is worth reiterating that the replacement plan doesn’t have to be conceptually or functionally similar to Obamacare, no matter how often the Paul Krugmans of the world demand it. The comprehensiveness and rigidity of Obamacare are things to avoid. So replacement plans can be passed piecemeal...

More.

Republicans Stronger Than Democrats for November Midterms

This is a "generic ballot" poll on party prospects for the November elections to the House of Representatives, at NYT, "G.O.P., Though Deeply Split, Has Election Edge, Poll Shows." (At Memeorandum.)

The poll finds that 42 percent say they'll support GOP candidates in November and 39 percent like the Democrats -- a statistically insignificant result since it's within the polls margin of error. But here's the findings on the ObamaCare clusterf-k: The nationwide poll was conducted Feb. 19 to 23 by landline and cellphone among 1,644 adults and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points for all adults and plus or minus 6 points for Republicans, Democrats and independents. The survey comes more than eight months before Election Day, and less than a quarter of those who responded said they were paying a lot of attention to the 2014 election, meaning that each party has ample opportunity to sway voters.

One issue, though — the Affordable Care Act — seems to have solidified some opposition to Democrats, and historical trends such as an older, whiter midterm electorate are also favorable to Republicans.

“It seems all the Democrats are for Obamacare, and I think this is a really bad deal,” Larry Walker, an independent voter from Torrance, Calif., said in a follow-up interview.

Mr. Obama’s approval rating is now at 41 percent, with 51 percent of Americans saying they disapprove of his performance, his worst standing in the past two years, with the exception of a CBS News survey last November in the midst of the troubled rollout of the new health care law. Such ratings amount to an early political alarm for Democrats on the ballot this year. When a party controls the White House, its performance in midterm congressional elections typically tracks closely to the popularity of the sitting president in the fall.

There's much in there that's unfavorable to the Republicans, but frankly 2014's looking to be a referendum on the Democrat Party's performance on the economy and healthcare, and they're not coming up roses.

Here's the raw survey questionnaire at the New York Times, "Complete Results: New York Times/CBS News February Poll." President Obama's job disapproval on the economy is 57 percent. And the level of dissatisfaction with the way things are going in Washington is nearly off the charts. Almost half of those polled said they were "dissatisfied but not angry" (49 percent), and then another 30 percent are "angry" (a total of 79 percent unhappy campers). Also, on another measure, 37 percent are "very disappointed" with the Obama presidency, while 22 percent are "disappointed" (a total of 59 percent who are "disappointed" with this administration). And in separate questions, voters said that both parties needed to do much more to address "the needs and concerns of middle class voters" (75 percent said Republicans should do more and 69 said Democrats should do more). Finally, exactly half thought Congress should make changes to ObamaCare "to make it work better" while 42 percent thought it should be "repealed entirely."

In sum, basic bread-and-butter issues are driving voter concerns this year, and neither party is seen well among respondents. But Democrats are most vulnerable on issues that rank front-and-center with the electorate, the economy, economic mobility, and healthcare. As I've reported many times, analysts don't expect much change in the House of Representatives, and in fact Democrats have little chance of retaking the chamber in the fall. But as I've said, it's the Senate where the real action is, and some experts suggest the Democrats could be looking at losses of close to 10 seats (the GOP needs 6 seats to capture the majority). I don't see anything at this poll that's likely to dislodge those expectations, and certainly vulnerable incumbents like Kay Hagan are literally running away from questions on the Democrats' once-marquee issue, ObamaCare. See United Liberty, "NC Senate: Kay Hagan runs away from reporters asking about Obamacare."

RELATED: My ideologically-addled antagonist Martin Longman, of BooMan Tribune, is having illusions of Democrat victory in November, "Curtis Gans Says the Dems Can Win in November." Gans (cited there) is a progressive political analyst who's got an interesting (if deeply flawed) piece up at the far-left Washington Monthly, "Midterm Signals and Noise: Why Democrats Could Do Better in November Than Everyone Thinks." After his discussion of the "signals and noise," here's what Gans says on the Democrats' surprisingly (fantastically) good chances for the fall:

Despite current conventional wisdom, such an election [Democrat wave election] is not only possible but probable, but only if three signals occur - if September polls, the polls taken when people are paying attention to the upcoming election, show a substantial improvement in Obama’s approval rating and an equally substantial increase in public support of the Affordable Care Act, and if the economy does not relapse into recession.

Gans has been smoking double-dipped Thai sticks until they're coming out his ears. None of these three things is going to happen. There is no miracle that will lift Obama's public opinion numbers into the plus-50 range (an approval level he'd need to change voters' electoral behavior). He may get back into the high-forties, but for him to gain majority approval again, we'd need robust economic growth with a substantial drop in the unemployment rate, which isn't likely. (It doesn't matter if the economy has a "relapse back into recession," since voters are already angry about the economy right now. They'll only be further enraged should the unemployment rate head north once again --- which is not a foregone conclusion considering Obama's record of economic mismanagement). And while the opinion trends on ObamaCare have probably bottomed out, recall, as Megan McArdle has pointed out, even worse news on the law's mangled roll-out may be yet to come.

Those are the key factors I'm expecting to influence the November results. All the rest is noise, hilariously so in the context of the predictive model of Curtis Gans, and apparently Martin Longman as well.

The Democrats are going to get hammered. I can't see any realistic scenario in which the factors highlighted at the Times poll, or those "three signals" cited by Gans, show a dramatic and politically significant turnaround. If it's going to be a "wave election," it's going to be a GOP wave. Screw the leftist bastards. Democrats rammed the ObamaCare monstrosity down the throats of the American public on a straight party-line vote. Now all they can do is lie about how the Republicans are exploiting ObamaCare "insurance losers" and inventing ObamaCare "horror stories."

It's not going to be pretty, but I'll have more later, as always.

The #ObamaCare Copperheads

At WSJ, "If the law is now such a success, why are Senate Democrats still fleeing?"

Because the people who matter --- the voters --- don't buy the MSM bullshit about 7.1 million signups and how it's such a great law after all.

Suddenly ObamaCare is a roaring success, happy days are here again and liberals are euphoric, or claim to be. There are more than a few reasons to doubt this new fairy tale, not least the behavior of Senate Democrats running for re-election this year.

In the Rose Garden Tuesday, President Obama reported that 7.1 million people had signed up so far, confirming a Monday night White House news leak. "That doesn't mean all our health-care problems have been solved forever," he conceded with customary modesty. The government appears to have tapped heretofore-unknown reserves of bureaucratic efficiency by releasing numbers timed to this campaign-style pep rally.

Yet for months the Health and Human Services Department has refused to disclose crucial contextual data, such as how many insurance contracts are in force, the market-by-market totals and how many beneficiaries were previously covered. Regardless of your partisan sympathies, the White House's selective disclosure is a crime against transparency and accountable government.

Then there are the 12 Democratic Senators up for re-election who each cast the decisive 60th vote for ObamaCare. They're acting as if the law is still a political threat, and presumably their polls say as much. The ObamaCare Dozen have tried to create an alibi by saying the plan isn't perfect but mend it don't end it. They've now proposed some concrete fixes, and they must think their constituents aren't paying attention.

Courtesy of Democrats like Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Begich of Alaska and Mark Warner of Virginia, the big idea is to create a cheaper, worse type of coverage on the ObamaCare exchanges. All current plans are more or less interchangeable because of the law's benefit and wealth redistribution mandates. They differ based mainly on how much of the upfront cost is built into the premium, with tiers known as platinum, gold, silver and bronze.

The Senators want to create a new "copper" policy that would cover 50% of average medical expenses with the rest out of pocket. Are people really clamoring for even higher ObamaCare deductibles? A true fix would deregulate the exchanges and trust American consumers to choose the benefits they want or need, rather than forcing them to pay slightly less for one uniform standard. These mandates were determined via HHS administrative discretion, not by the statute or written by a finger of light.

The Democratic fixers also want to ask state insurance commissioners "to develop models for states to sell heath insurance across state lines" and "discern the benefits and challenges of selling health insurance in this manner." In other words, ask local regulators how much of their vast new ObamaCare powers they want to give up in the name of national competition. Predetermined answer: None...

More via Memeorandum.

Halbig May Be Death Blow to #ObamaCare

From Betsy McCaughey, at IBD, "Halbig v. Burwell Court Decision May Be Death Blow to ObamaCare":

Obamacare in Critical Condition—Facing Death Spiral.

Yesterday, a federal appeals court slapped down the Obama administration in a 2-1 ruling that could kill the president's signature health care law.

If upheld by the Supreme Court, the ruling would force Congress back to the drawing board to design a health law that is actually affordable rather than simply bearing the false title "Affordable Care Act."

The ruling in Halbig v. Burwell bars the federal government from handing out taxpayer-funded subsidies to people who buy ObamaCare plans in nearly two-thirds of the states.

Those subsidies took the sting out of being forced to buy pricey ObamaCare plans. If the ruling sticks, buyers in those states will have to pay full price, which is, on average, a whopping four times the subsidized price that they paid this year.

Quadrupling the price would likely trigger a mass exodus out of the plans, causing what the insurance industry calls a "death spiral."

The ruling by the influential appeals court for the District of Columbia also chastised the Obama administration for rewriting the law to suit its own ends.

Halbig is the latest in a series of warnings from federal judges that in America, the rule of law is king, not President Barack Obama.

More.

And the big debate now is on Obama health consultant Jonathan Guber, at Memeorandum. See especially Peter Suderman, at Reason, "Watch Obamacare Architect Jonathan Gruber Admit in 2012 That Subsidies Were Limited to State-Run Exchanges (Updated With Another Admission), " and Ed Morrissey, at Hot Air, "ObamaCare architect explained in 2012 video why only state exchanges pay subsidies."

You Cannot Be Serious! Covered California Richard Simmons #ObamaCare Dance Off Debacle

I mean let's get real. Someone on staff of California's ObamaCare exchanges thought that a Richard Simmons dance off video would encourage young people to sign up? This is literally the worst thing I've ever seen associated with promotion of the ACA. It's positively radioactive. Clips of Simmons doing the spread eagle will no doubt make their way into political ads for 2014. Heads should be rolling even as we speak.

I can't in good conscience embed the video, so see how long you can hold out without gagging at the link, "Tell a Friend - Get Covered: Richard Simmons Dance Off."

This was on Greta's this afternoon, "ObamaCare Unplugged."

And at Twitchy, "Covered California’s ‘Richard Simmons twerk-a-thon’ tries to reach uninsured Millennials."

.@TwitchyTeam The most dorky thing ever, and produced by the so-called "cool" Democrats. #Fail
— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) January 18, 2014

This is your government on LSD http://t.co/Dx3nYpx80U
— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) January 17, 2014

Whoever thought Richard Simmons was the way to get young people to sign up for Obamacare needs to get fired. Stat. http://t.co/CU3vwlvNER
— Francesca Chambers (@fran_chambers) January 17, 2014

More at the Blaze, "Yes, California, Your Tax Dollars Were Used to Finance a Richard Simmons Pro-Obamacare Dance-a-Thon," and at Hot Air, "Video: Who’s up for an ObamaCare enrollment dance-off featuring Richard Simmons?"

And at AoSHQ, "That Should Do the Trick: Obamacare's Six Hour Internet Telethon to "Get Covered" Features Contortionist, Guy Whose Expertise is "Drunk Cooking," and of Course... Richard Simmons."

OUT: Footie Pajama Guy

IN: Richard Simmons, Disco Contortionism, and cocaine-fueled gay nightmares

#ObamaCare Winners at Losers (From the San Jose Mercury News)

I read this piece when it first became available last week, but then it went viral over the weekend.

See Tracy Seipel, "Obamacare's winners and losers in Bay Area":

Cindy Vinson and Tom Waschura are big believers in the Affordable Care Act. They vote independent and are proud to say they helped elect and re-elect President Barack Obama.

Yet, like many other Bay Area residents who pay for their own medical insurance, they were floored last week when they opened their bills: Their policies were being replaced with pricier plans that conform to all the requirements of the new health care law.

Vinson, of San Jose, will pay $1,800 more a year for an individual policy, while Waschura, of Portola Valley, will cough up almost $10,000 more for insurance for his family of four.

"Welcome to the club," said Robert Laszewksi, a prominent health care consultant and president of Health Policy and Strategy Associates in Virginia.

For years, the nation has been embroiled in the political rhetoric of "Obamacare," but this past week the reality of the new law sank in as millions of Americans had their first good look at how the 3 1/2-year-old legislation will affect their pocketbooks.

This much quickly became clear:

As state- and federal-run health insurance exchanges debuted across the country offering a range of prices for different tiers of insurance coverage, the new online marketplaces -- which represent the centerpiece of Obamacare -- could greatly benefit more than 40 million Americans who now lack coverage. But an additional 16 million -- who buy individual health insurance policies on the open market -- are finding out that their plans may not comply with the new law, which requires 10 essential benefits such as maternity care, mental health care and prescription drug coverage.

In California, 1.9 million people buy plans on the open market, according to officials with Covered California, the state's new health insurance exchange. And many of them are steaming mad.

"There's going to be a number of people surprised" by their bills, said Jonathan Wu, a co-founder of ValuePenguin, a consumer finance website. "The upper-middle class are the people who are essentially being asked to foot the bill, and that's true across the country"....

Even those who don't qualify for the tax subsidies could see their rates drop because Obamacare doesn't allow insurers to charge people more if they have pre-existing conditions such as diabetes and cancer, he said.

People like Marilynn Gray-Raine.

The 64-year-old Danville artist, who survived breast cancer, has purchased health insurance for herself for decades. She watched her Anthem Blue Cross monthly premiums rise from $317 in 2005 to $1,298 in 2013. But she found out last week from the Covered California site that her payments will drop to about $795 a month.

But people with no pre-existing conditions like Vinson, a 60-year-old retired teacher, and Waschura, a 52-year-old self-employed engineer, are making up the difference.

"I was laughing at Boehner -- until the mail came today," Waschura said, referring to House Speaker John Boehner, who is leading the Republican charge to defund Obamacare.

"I really don't like the Republican tactics, but at least now I can understand why they are so pissed about this. When you take $10,000 out of my family's pocket each year, that's otherwise disposable income or retirement savings that will not be going into our local economy."

Both Vinson and Waschura have adjusted gross incomes greater than four times the federal poverty level -- the cutoff for a tax credit. And while both said they anticipated their rates would go up, they didn't realize they would rise so much.

"Of course, I want people to have health care," Vinson said. "I just didn't realize I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally."

And ICYMI, be sure to watch the CBS News report from yesterday, "CBS News Issues Devastating Report on #ObamaCare Failure: System Needs 'Heart Transplant'."

America Isn't Better With #ObamaCare

From Katie Pavlich, at the Hill:

It’s been five years since the Affordable Care Act, better known as ObamaCare, was passed and signed into law. This week, the White House is touting the legislation as a huge success and claiming the country is better off.

“FACT: We’ve seen the largest drop in the uninsured rate in decades since the ACA became law. #BetterWithObamacare,” the official White House Twitter feed sent out Sunday.

“More than 16 million Americans have gained health coverage thanks to the Affordable Care Act. #BetterWithObamacare,” another tweet said.

First, it’s important to analyze this White House white lie. While more Americans do in fact have health insurance in the wake of ObamaCare, the administration fails to point out that citizens are required by law to do so or pay a fine.
This wasn’t the case in decades past. Times — and the law — have changed. The government criminalized the decision not to purchase healthcare, and the IRS has been tapped with enforcing the requirement. More people have health insurance because they’ve been forced into the system, not because they want insurance or because they have easier access.

Second, let’s review how ObamaCare was passed in 2010. It happened in the middle of the night through a change in Senate rules and without a single Republican vote. Then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is now infamous for saying, “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”

She also wasn’t shy about the tactics used to get the legislation through Congress. “We will go through the gate and if the gate is closed, we will go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we will pole-vault in. If that doesn’t work, we will parachute in. But we are going to get healthcare reform passed for the American people for their own personal health and economic security and for the important role that it will play in reducing the deficit,” Pelosi said in January 2010.

Although ObamaCare is still highly controversial, as Pelosi once admitted, its negative impact is clearer.

For example, having health insurance is not the same thing as having access to medical care or affordable coverage. The costs of health insurance premiums and deductibles have significantly increased, leaving families in even more dire financial situations. According to research from the Manhattan Institute, health insurance premiums for people living in a number of states across the country have gone up by more than 100 percent.

Overall, costs to the taxpayer have been enormous, with $2 billion spent on HealthCare.gov, which didn’t work properly for a year, and an estimated $2 trillion in addition to enforce ObamaCare over the next 10 years. Data from a Government Accountability Office report released in 2013 has been cited showing ObamaCare adds $6.2 trillion to the long-term U.S. deficit, a far cry from liberal claims that deficits would be reduced as a result of the law.

Further, and most detrimental, is the mass retirement of doctors...

One of the great public policy abominations ever inflicted on the American people.

Keep reading.

#ObamaCare's Redistribution Scheme Exposed

One of the very best recent commentaries I've read.

From Holman Jenkins, Jr., at WSJ, "How the GOP Should Fix ObamaCare":

Let's understand: The stumbling block to fixing Mr. Obama's broken promise is Democrats clinging to the central redistributive scheme embedded in ObamaCare. There is no reconciling the two.

Americans are beginning to understand that the essence of the Affordable Care Act is that millions of people are being conscripted to buy overpriced insurance they would never choose for themselves in order to afford Mr. Obama monies to spend on the poor and those who are medically uninsurable due to pre-existing conditions. Both Mr. Obama and Republicans are blowing smoke in claiming that the damage done to the individual market by the forced cancellation of "substandard" plans (i.e., those that don't meet the purposes of ObamaCare) can somehow be reversed at this point. It can't be.

What can be done is Congress creating a new option in the form of a national health insurance charter under which insurers could design new low-cost policies free of mandated benefits imposed by ObamaCare and the 50 states that many of those losing their individual policies today surely would find attractive.

What's the first thing the new nationally chartered insurers would do? Rush out cheap, high-deductible policies, allaying some of the resentment that the ObamaCare mandate provokes among the young, healthy and footloose affluent.

These folks could buy the minimalist coverage that (for various reasons) makes sense for them. They wouldn't be forced to buy excessive coverage they don't need to subsidize the old and sick.

If this idea sounds familiar, it was proposed right here three years ago, after the 2010 elections in which Democrats lost the House due to public disquiet over ObamaCare.

Continue reading.

ObamaCare Already Driving a Wave of Health-Care Consolidation — and Higher Costs

The following graph is from the New York Times, "Health Care Overhaul Depends on States’ Insurance Exchanges." The chart is supposed to illustrate how the exchanges will facilitate "the right mix of regulation and competition." But I'll be darned, I can't see anything here that closely resembles the market, and hence competition. Folks go to the "state health insurance exchanges" (where firms are supposed to be competing for patients), then straight to federal-state Medicaid programs (after passing a means test), then to the Department of Health and Human Services (the federal agency running Medicare), then back to the state insurance exchanges, and then to the patient meeting the service provider. And the line for "eligibility" to Social Security, Homeland Security, and the Treasury Department is not clear. I mean, seriously, eligibility? The Department of Homeland Security is now part of the ObamaCare insurance overhaul? Looks pretty messed up if this chart is any indication. But we have better picture at the Wall Street Journal, "Big Insurance, Big Medicine":

ObamaCare's once and future harms have been well chronicled, but the major effects so far are less obvious and arguably more important: A wave of consolidation is washing over the health markets, and the result is going to be higher costs.

The turn toward consolidation among insurance companies is not new, and neither is it among doctors, hospitals and other providers. Yet the health bill has accelerated these trends, as all sides race to anticipate and manage political risk and regulatory uncertainty. This dynamic is leading to much larger hospital systems and physician groups, and fewer insurers dominated by a handful of national conglomerates. ObamaCare was sold using the language of choice and competition, but it is actually reducing both.

The first surge will come among the 1,200 insurers doing business in the U.S., given that a major goal of ObamaCare is to convert these companies into de facto public utilities. Those regulations are now being written—and once they're up and running some medium-sized carriers will collapse under the new mandates and higher overhead. State insurance commissioners warned the Administration this month that "improper or overly strident application . . . could threaten the solvency of insurers or significantly reduce competition in some insurance markets." They also implied that bankruptcies are likely.

With these headwinds, investors and Wall Street analysts are now predicting a lost decade for health insurance stocks. But it may be more accurate to say that there will be a lot of losers and some very big winners. Mergers and acquisitions will increase dramatically once companies get a better look at the regulation and figure out the valuation of M&A targets. Larger carriers will swallow smaller ones quietly before they fail.

Both publicly traded and nonprofit insurers have been heading in this direction for years, as in any industry where there are returns to scale. Size is also important in a low-margin business in which capital is costly and political clout vital. But scale is far more central now, because ObamaCare standardizes benefits. Once insurers lose the freedom to design their own products, they'll essentially be selling commodities, and survival will depend on enrollment volume and market share.

There's more at the link, but this is exactly what (tea party) critics warned all through 2009: ObamaCare would drive private firms from the market in a process of stealth nationalization, with the end result being state-planned health rationalization (or death panels, but nobody likes to talk about those).

How #ObamaCare Raises Prices and Limits Medical Choices

Another essential analysis, at the Wall Street Journal, "ObamaCare's Plans Are Worse":

Liberals justify [ObamaCare's] coercive cross-subsidies as necessary to finance coverage for the uninsured and those with pre-existing conditions. But government usually helps the less fortunate honestly by raising taxes to fund programs. In summer 2009, Senate Democrats put out such a bill, and the $1.6 trillion sticker shock led them to hide the transfers by forcing people to buy overpriced products.

This political mugging is especially unfair to the people whose plans on the current individual market are being taken away. The majority of these consumers are self-employed or small-business owners. They're middle class, rarely affluent. They took responsibility for their care without government aid, and unlike people in the job-based system, they paid with after-tax dollars.

Now they're being punished for the crime of not subsidizing ObamaCare, even though the individual market was never as dysfunctional or high cost as liberals claim. In 2012, average U.S. individual premiums were $190, ranging from a low of $123 in North Dakota to a high of $385 in Massachusetts. Average premiums for family plans fell that year by 0.5% to $412.

Those numbers come from the 13,000 different policies from 180 insurers sold on eHealthInsurance.com, the online shopping brokerage that works. (Technological wonders never cease.) Individuals can make the trade-offs between costs and benefits for themselves. This wide variety is proof that humans don't all want or need the same thing. If they did, there would be no need for a market and government could satisfy everybody.

That is precisely what the Obama health planners believe they can do. Regulators mandated a very rich level of "essential" health benefits that all plans in the individual market must cover, regardless of cost. This year eHealth reported that its data show individual premiums must be 47% higher than the old average to fund the new categories in the individual market.

RTWT.

And then check, FWIW, Nobel Prize-winning socialist Paul Krugman, "Obamacare's Secret Success" (at Memeorandum).

Krugman's "secret success" is the claim that ObamaCare is "secretly" lowering national healthcare expenditures.

The problem, of course, is that it is doing no such thing. See the detailed analysis from Charles Blahous, for the Manhattan Institute, "NO GROUNDS FOR CLAIM THAT OBAMACARE LOWERS HEALTHCARE COSTS."