Democrats claim to have a monopoly on caring for the poor and suffering, and this week the left is portraying a GOP health-care bill as an attack on society’s vulnerable. So check out the data on how ObamaCare is a tax on some low-income families.
IRS data offers insight into who paid the law’s individual mandate penalty in 2015 for not buying health insurance, the latest year for which figures are available. Spoiler alert: The payers aren’t Warren Buffett or any of the other wealthy folks Democrats say they want to tax. More than one in three of taxed households earned less than $25,000, which is roughly the federal poverty line for a family of four.
. . .
John McCain is an American war hero with many political accomplishments. That legacy, though will be diminished by not one but two decisions to kill Republican health-care reform. And no one should let Senator Rand Paul off the hook, either.
Mr. McCain said in a Friday statement that he “cannot in good conscience” vote for a proposal from Lindsey Graham and Bill Cassidy that would devolve ObamaCare funding to the states, as well as repeal the medical-device tax and the employer and individual mandates. The deadline to pass the bill with 51 votes is Sept. 30 thanks to arcane Senate budget procedures. Mr. McCain’s no vote almost certainly dooms the project, as Mr. Paul has already declared his opposition and Susan Collins of Maine is thought to be a reliable no vote as well.
. . .
Democrats once liked a federalist solution to health care, and Sen. Lindsey Graham was one of those who worked with them. In 2007 he and Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold proposed the State-Based Health Reform Act that would have given states even more freedom than Graham-Cassidy. But these days Democrats fear that state laboratories would discredit the command and control approach to health care that they hope will lead to single-payer. The choice Republicans face isn’t between Graham-Cassidy or some bipartisan beau ideal. Their choice is to pass their own bill, which now means Graham-Cassidy, or fail again and cede the health-care advantage to the single-payer wing of the Democratic Party.
. . .
Two GOP senators are likely “no” votes: Kentucky’s Rand Paul and Maine’s Susan Collins. But Arizona’s John McCain, who spoiled this summer’s attempt at ObamaCare repeal, seems unlikely to repeat his performance and sandbag his good friend Lindsey Graham. That means the 50th vote will come down to Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, who says she’s still trying to decide how the bill will affect her state. If Ms. Murkowski is honest with her constituents—and about her numbers—Alaska needs a “yes” vote.
. . .
Unless Republicans can agree by Sept. 30, they won’t be able to pass a bill without 60 Senate votes. Here’s a wild idea: Instead of repealing ObamaCare, make it unconstitutional. Recall how the Supreme Court split when it upheld ObamaCare in 2012. What broke the tie was a novel opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, who upheld the law’s individual mandate by declaring it a tax. The GOP can take advantage of that premise and pass a two-page bill clarifying that Congress did not intend to use its taxing power to enforce the individual mandate and disavows the same going forward. Congress could state that it intends ObamaCare to contain no severability provision—meaning that, as the four dissenting justices agreed in 2012, the entire law must fall if the mandate is unconstitutional.
. . .
Graham-Cassidy is less ambitious than the Senate’s ObamaCare replacement that failed over the summer, and we could go on at length about its limitations. But the proposal at least takes most decision-making out of Washington and puts a spending cap on Medicaid and ObamaCare. The question for Members is: What is the alternative? The budget procedure that allows the Senate to address the law with a 51-vote majority expires on Sept. 30. ObamaCare’s exchanges will continue to deteriorate, and Democrats will blame Republicans for every premium increase from here to November 2018. The law will require who knows how many patches and bailouts in coming years, and consumers will continue to face higher prices and fewer choices.
. . .
Donald Trump’s gleeful deal with the Democrats—ratcheting up the debt ceiling, as well as the ire of the Republican establishment—puts John Cogan’s mind on 1972. Starting in February of that year, the Democratic presidential candidates engaged in a bidding war over Social Security to gain their party’s nomination. Sen. George McGovern kicked off the political auction with a call for a 20% increase in monthly payments. Sen. Edmund Muskie followed suit, as did Rep. Wilbur Mills, chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. Former Vice President Hubert Humphrey, never one to be outdone, offered a succulent 25%.
. . .
Virginia became the latest state at risk of having regions that will lack Affordable Care Act exchange plans next year, after a small insurer announced it will scale back the area where it expects to offer marketplace insurance.
The Virginia area that currently has no 2018 exchange insurer includes 48 counties and parts of six more, as well as 15 cities that are independent of counties, according to a Virginia state regulator. In total, the state has 95 counties and 38 independent cities.
. . .
Health and Human Services announced that the agency will alter the funding structure for ObamaCare “navigators.” These are the community outfits the Obama Administration paid to steer folks through the Affordable Care Act’s subsidies and penalties. Last year the Obama Administration handed out $62.5 million in grants for open enrollment for 2017, and the period arrives again in November.
One grantee took in $200,000 to enroll a grand total of one person. The top 10 most expensive navigators collected $2.77 million to sign up 314 people, and it would have been much cheaper to offer to pay all of their premiums for a year. All told, the navigators last year enrolled about 81,000 people, less than 1% of the total.
The Trump Administration will tie grants to performance.
. . .
In an effort to promote medical breakthroughs, the 21st Century Cures Act tries to create an “information commons”: a government-regulated pool of data accessible to all health researchers, regardless of background, training or motive.
Although speeding research is a noble goal, there’s little evidence that patients are willing to sacrifice their privacy the way that the 21st Century Cures Act requires.
. . .