“Some consumers and businesses might see a little extra cash this summer as a result of the 2010 health care law. The Kaiser Family Foundation recently reported an estimated $1.3 billion in rebates will be delivered from health insurers who spent more than the law allotted on administrative expenses and profits. What people don’t realize is that there’s a catch to this ‘free’ money. The rebates are required by an obscure regulation in the health care law, called the ‘minimum loss ratio,’ which also contains longer-term incentives for health insurers to increase costs that will be passed along to all of us. Instead of rushing to spend these extra dollars, rebate recipients are better off pocketing it to pay for higher premiums in the future.”
“In 2008, the average regulation received 56 days of OMB review. In 2009, the average regulation received 27 days of review. In 2010, the average ObamaCare regulation received 5 days of review. “
“The federal website Regulations.gov released the first round of public comments on the administration’s proposed anti-conscience mandate on Wednesday. The comments were overwhelmingly opposed to the measure: out of 211 comments submitted, only six, less than 3%, offered support for the mandate… The vast majority of the comments submitted focus on the mandate’s violation of Americans’ right of conscience, while a few discuss the health hazards of the medical procedures the mandate covers, and some call for full Obamacare repeal.”
“The mandate, they say, is necessary to rein in the cost-shifting to the insured caused by uninsured individuals who receive free or ‘uncompensated’ care when they visit emergency rooms and fail to pay. Will the justices buy Team Obama’s reasoning? They shouldn’t. The Administration’s argument for the mandate has it all backwards. In fact, the individual mandate will increase the amount of cost-shifting resulting from uncompensated care.”
“Absent the mandate, ObamaCare will not function as intended because the program’s coverage guarantee and expansion is financed, in part, through cross-subsidies generated by mandating that individuals purchase insurance policies that cost several times more than their expected insurance claims. Defenders of ObamaCare rationalize these compulsory transfers as inherent to “insurance,” which they erroneously present as a system where low-risk policyholders are expected to overpay for their coverage to reduce the cost of the policies for those with predictably high claims.”
“A new Reason-Rupe poll finds a majority of Americans (56 percent) favor a provision in the new health care law that requires employers with more than 50 employees to provide health insurance or else pay a fine. At the same time, 58 percent of Americans expect the employer mandate to drive employers to pay their workers less, 29 percent expect no significant impact on pay. Even among those who support the provision, 50 percent expect employers to reduce pay.
Moreover, nearly half of Americans (47 percent) expect the employer mandate will lead employers to lay off workers. 39 percent think it will not significantly impact employers’ hiring decisions.”
“While the Supreme Court weighs the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, Congress is holding hearings on the federal regulatory process. The two topics are more closely related than you might think. The healthcare law required many regulations, and thus far, the major regulations issued to implement the Affordable Care Act serve as ugly poster children for the regulatory reform movement.”
“President Obama campaigned on the commitment of having the most open and transparent administration
in history. Unfortunately, like President Obama’s campaign promise to lower health insurance premiums by $2,500 per family, this commitment quickly fell victim to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). This white paper explains the regulatory process for legal and transparent rulemaking, how the Obama administration has abused its power to avoid this process in implementing the PPACA, and how this lack of transparency hides the unworkable policies and true cost of the healthcare reform law.”
“ObamaCare demands that most health plans operate with a medical loss ratio (MLR) of 85 percent (or 80 percent for the individual market). This blog has noted that this regulation is arbitrary, meaningless, and will surely have negative unintended consequences. One of the nation’s top experts on Health Savings Accounts has analyzed these MLR rules and concluded that it will be next to impossible to offer consumer-driven plans under them.”
“A broad coalition of patient advocates Wednesday asked the Obama administration to slow down its implementation of a key regulation under the healthcare law. A group of 75 patient organizations asked the Health and Human Services Department to allow more time for public comment on its proposal for defining ‘essential health benefits.’ The healthcare law directs HHS to define a package of essential benefits that all insurance plans will have to cover beginning in 2014.”