Healthcare

The President’s Health Care Fables

by Hans Bader on July 16, 2011 · 1 comment

in Healthcare, Politics as Usual, Regulation, Sanctimony, Zeitgeist

The president pushed the health care bill through Congress using a series of fables — health insurance horror stories that turned out to be false. Michelle Malkin chronicles just a few of the false anecdotes told by President Obama in making the case for Obamacare. The most famous was the false claim that his mother’s health insurer tried to avoid paying for his dying mother’s treatment based on a pre-existing condition — when it in fact did no such thing and paid her benefits in full. (As the Washington Post notes, Obama’s misleading stories about his mother’s final months “often spoke as if he had been at his mother’s side,” even though he actually failed to visit her at all in the months leading up to her death from cancer.)

As Malkin notes, Obama’s “sham-ecdote” about his mother “is just the latest entry in an ever-expanding catalogue of Obamacare fables,” which include the following:

– Otto Raddatz. In 2009, Obama publicized the plight of this Illinois cancer patient, who supposedly died after he was dropped from his Fortis/Assurant Health insurance plan when his insurer discovered an unreported gallstone the patient hadn’t known about. The truth? He got the treatment he needed in 2005 and lived for nearly four more years.

– Robin Beaton. Also in 2009, Obama claimed Beaton — a breast cancer patient — lost her insurance after “she forgot to declare a case of acne.” In fact, she failed to disclose a previous heart condition and did not list her weight accurately, but had her insurance restored anyway after intense public lobbying.”

– Natoma Canfield. The White House made the Ohio cancer patient a poster child for Obamacare in 2010 after she wrote a letter complaining about skyrocketing premiums and the prospect of losing her home. After Obama gave Canfield a shout-out at a health care rally in Strongsville, Ohio, and promised to control costs, officials at the renowned Cleveland Clinic, which is treating her, made clear that they would “not put a lien on her home” and that she was eligible for a wide variety of state aid and private charity care.

[click to continue…]

Obamacare’s Costs Rise, as Obama Backers Get Preferential Treatment

by Hans Bader on March 7, 2011 · 1 comment

in Economy, Features, Healthcare, Politics as Usual, Regulation

Post image for Obamacare’s Costs Rise, as Obama Backers Get Preferential Treatment

The cost of Obamacare continues to explode and exceed its sponsors’ predictions. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has now admitted to double-counting in the Obamacare budget, using the same $500 billion twice, first “to sustain” the existing Medicare program and then to “pay for” brand new Obamacare entitlements. Last year, the CBO hiked its estimate of Obamacare’s costs by $115 billion, even as many of its promised benefits failed to materialize.

Obamacare was supposed to save patients money by curbing insurance company profits and expanding state Medicaid programs to cover millions more people. (This expansion was criticized by state officials, including a few Democrats such as former Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen, who called it “the mother of all unfunded mandates.” Bredesen’s health care legal advisor concluded that Obamacare’s Medicaid-expansion provisions were unconstitutional.)

[click to continue…]

PolitiFact: Obama Made False Claims About Health Care, Taxes, and Court Rulings

by Hans Bader on February 11, 2011 · 1 comment

in Economy, Employment, Healthcare, Legal, Regulation

PolitiFact, which earlier took Obama’s side about whether Obamacare is a government takeover of  health care, now is criticizing President Obama for making false claims about health care and taxes. In a pre–Super Bowl interview with Bill O’Reilly, Obama made the false claim that 12 judges have rejected “the notion that the health care law was unconstitutional.” As PolitiFact notes, only “four judges have ruled on the merits of various cases challenging the health care law. Two ruled in favor of the administration and two against.” (Earlier, we explained why the recent ruling by a Florida judge striking down Obamacare was not judicial activism.)

Obama’s problem with numbers isn’t new; during the 2008 campaign, he claimed that he had been to “57 states.” So he may not have been deliberately lying about this.

But as John Kartch noted earlier, Obama made a far more flagrantly false claim when he insisted to Bill O’Reilly that “I didn’t raise taxes once” while president. It’s hard to view that claim as anything other than a lie. Obama has signed into law a long list of tax increases on consumers and investors, which Kartch lists here. That includes “two dozen new or higher taxes” just in the health care law alone.

Some of the biggest of Obama’s tax increases haven’t gone into effect yet, and won’t go into effect until after the 2012 election, such as the new 3.8 percent tax it levies on many of America’s investors. As PolitiFact noted in debunking Obama’s claim that he hadn’t raised taxes, “starting in 2013,” “Individuals who make more than $200,000 and couples that make more than $250,000 will see additional Medicare taxes of 0.9 percent. They will also, for the first time, have to pay Medicare taxes on their investment income at a 3.8 percent rate.”

By contrast, an excise tax increase Obama signed in 2009 went into effect “soon after” he took “office,” and some of the tax increases in the health-care law that affect middle-class patients and medical-device manufacturers are already in effect.

For the moment, Americans’ taxes are not that high, because many of the tax increases already signed into law have yet to kick in. But appearances are deceiving, for as Kartch notes, “100% of the tax increases Obama signed into law are … permanent,” while “over 90% of the dollar value of the tax cuts Obama signed into law are only temporary.”

I earlier discussed why PolitiFact was wrong to accept the Obama administration’s claim that Obamacare was not a government takeover of the health care system.

While it dramatically increases regulation and red tape, Obamacare has done little to control costs; health insurance premiums have risen substantially in many states as a result of its passage, such as a 47 percent increase for some policyholders in Connecticut. Obamacare contains provisions that are harmful to the economy and medical innovation. Earlier, I discussed some of the bad effects of Obamacare on patients, employers, consumers, and the insurance market.

The End of the Imaginary Age of Civility

by Hans Bader on February 7, 2011 · 1 comment

in Politics as Usual, Sanctimony, Zeitgeist

After the Tucson shooting, liberals lectured America, and especially conservatives, on the alleged need for more civility (even though there was no evidence that the shooter was influenced by any uncivil political rhetoric, and the shooter was not a conservative).

But the new era of civility didn’t last long, if it ever existed at all.  Some of the very people who loudly demanded civility from others quickly returned to their own deeply-ingrained habit of trash talk and hate-filled vitriol.

Liberal actor and activist Richard Dreyfuss set up a project to promote “civility in political discourse” after the shootings.  When he was asked about a liberal radio host’s yearning for the death of the “dirtbag” Dick Cheney, he praised it as “beautifully phrased,” endorsing an intemperate diatribe that also branded Cheney as an “enemy of the country,” and a “freakin’ loser.”

The liberal lobbying group Common Cause, which had hectored America about the need for civility, helped organize a demonstration outside a conference in California where participants called for the lynching of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Liberal Congressman Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) helped usher in the new Age of Civility by likening Republicans to Nazis like Joseph Goebbels.

The Washington Post and New York Times enlisted two prominent practitioners of trash talk to lecture America about the need for civility. Al Sharpton preached about the “dangers of inflammatory rhetoric” in the Washington Post, despite his own past history of helping incite a deadly race riot, and a court judgment against him for defamation arising out of the Tawana Brawley hate-crime hoax.   Ex-congressman Paul Kanjorski (D) lectured about the need for “civility” in the Times, despite his October 2010 statement that Florida governor Rick Scott (R) should be shot.

The Post op-ed writers who endorsed the calls for civility then paved the way for yet more civility, both by branding conservatives as spiteful lobotomy patients, and by insinuating that opponents of gun control are collectively guilty of subversion and nativism, writing that “the descriptions of President Obama as a ‘tyrant,’ the intimations that he is ‘alien’ and the suggestions that his presidency is illegitimate are essential to the core rationale for resisting any restrictions on firearms.”

Even as it prattled about the need for civility, the New York Times editorial board directed readers to its earlier diatribe that baselessly accused Republicans, the Tea Party, and conservative media of creating a climate of “division” and “anger” that made the Tucson shootings possible. The Times did so even though a column by its own David Brooks had earlier pointed out that there was “no evidence” that the shooter was influenced in any way by conservatives.

While the Post and the Times don’t seem at all concerned about the death threats recently made by liberal activists against Republican lawmakers in Florida and in Wisconsin, they are very up in arms about factual references to the health care law as being “job-killing”  (a claim based partly on Congressional Budget Office findings that Obamacare would reduce the size of the American labor force by perhaps 800,000 people). The Post‘s Dana Milbank seems to think that criticizing the killing of an inanimate object (like a job) is violent rhetoric, and he recently wrote a long, sanctimonious editorial devoted almost entirely to the alleged incivility of referring to Obamacare as “job-killing,” which he regards as rhetorical “poison.”

Since the big-government policies they favor typically wipe out jobs  (like the $800 billion stimulus package, which wiped out jobs in America’s export sector, while subsidizing foreign green jobs, and which the CBO admitted would shrink the size of the U.S. economy in “the long run“), it’s not surprising that liberal journalists like Milbank would want to squelch discussion of “job-killing” policies.

If Obamacare Is Repealed, Conventional Wisdom is Defeated

by Lee Doren on January 31, 2011

in Legal

After Obamacare was passed into law, those who articulated conventional wisdom argued that “repeal” would be impossible. Instead, we heard that the best anyone could hope for is that sections the law would be reformed. We also were told that the public would totally reject “taking away” healthcare benefits from those who just received them after the law’s passage. A clear warning was sent to Obamacare opponents to move slowly.

Originally, the pragmatists seemed to have history on their side. There is little precedent for an enormous government entitlement being scrapped, and George W. Bush learned how difficult it was to reform an entitlement like Social Security. Overall, politicians prefer to buy votes with other people’s money.

However, a federal judge in Florida today struck down Obamacare, and according to Senator Jim DeMint, all Republican Senators have cosponsored a bill to repeal Obamacare S.192. This comes just a few weeks after the House of Representatives voted to repeal the law, placing the momentum clearly on the side of repeal.

If repeal is ultimately successful, it will not just be a temporary win for small government libertarians. Instead, it will likely galvanize many proponents of limited government to throw conventional wisdom out the window and fight together.

Moreover, if Obamacare is repealed, its ramifications will likely extend beyond Obamacare itself. It would mean that all entitlements are on the table when future budget cuts are proposed, and it will create the precedent necessary to give confidence to those who want to reject the conventional wisdom.

Obamacare Makes State Budget Problems Worse

by Hans Bader on December 21, 2010 · 1 comment

in Healthcare, Legal, Regulation

Obamacare is making state budget problems much worse, as governors now lament. Earlier, CEI filed an amicus brief in Florida v. HHS on behalf of two governors explaining how the radical changes to state Medicaid programs resulting from Obamacare violated limits on congressional power under the Constitution’s spending clause. Some of the fiscal burdens Obamacare imposes on states are obviously huge, while many others are ambiguous, unpredictable, and contingent on bureaucratic caprice, and uncertain future events.

Governors like Phil Bredesen (D-Tenn.) and Donald Carcieri (R-R.I.) warned earlier about the crippling costs of Obamacare to state budgets, but they were ignored by Obama and Congressional Democrats in their headlong rush to pass the health care bill. An adviser to Gov. Bredesen, James Blumstein (a professor of constitutional and health care law at Vanderbilt), argues that Obamacare is a violation of constitutional limits on Congress’s power under the spending clause.

Should Obamacare Be Struck Down In Its Entirety Rather Than Just Having Its Unconstitutional Parts Severed?

by Hans Bader on December 16, 2010 · 1 comment

in Healthcare, Legal, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Regulation

In his ruling striking down Obamacare’s individual mandate (requirement that people buy health insurance), Judge Hudson in Richmond declined to strike down the rest of the law, believing that the unconstitutional part of Obamacare, which violated constitutional federalism constraints, could be severed from the rest of the law. But the health care law lacks a severability clause, and lawyer Ken Klukowski filed a brief in Florida’s challenge to Obamacare explaining why the entire law should logically be struck down. In Reason, Peter Suderman explains why even if Obamacare is not struck down in its entirety, the courts should at least strike down some other provisions that are related to the individual mandate, such as Obamacare’s ban on insurers taking into account pre-existing conditions.

As I noted earlier in The Washington Examiner, “To justify preserving the rest of the law, the judge cited a 2010 Supreme Court ruling that invalidated part of a law — but kept the rest of it in force. But that case involved a law passed almost unanimously by Congress, which would have passed it even without the challenged provision. Obamacare is totally different. It was barely passed by a divided Congress, but only as a package. Supporters admitted that the unconstitutional part of it — the insurance mandate — was the law’s heart. Obamacare’s legion of special-interest giveaways that are ‘extraneous to health care’ does not alter that.” In short, Obamacare’s individual mandate is not “volitionally severable,” as case law requires.

Moreover, even if a single unconstitutional provision could be severed from Obamacare to preserve the remainder, that would not fix its other constitutional violations. The individual mandate, which exceeds Congress’ power under the Interstate Commerce Clause, is not the only unconstitutional provision in the health care law. Obamacare also violates the Tenth Amendment through Medicaid expansion provisions that transgress spending-clause limits applicable to federal-state programs, as I explain in an amicus brief for two governors in Florida v. HHS.

Law Professor James Blumstein, a constitutional and healthcare expert and advisor to Gov. Phil Bredesen (D-Tenn.), makes a different, but powerful, constitutional argument here that is also based on the Constitution’s spending clause.

Earlier, I discussed some of the bad effects of Obamacare on patients, employers, consumers, and the insurance market.

NFL Concussion Economics

by Lee Doren on November 8, 2010 · 2 comments

in Economy

There has been an enormous spike of news reports regarding the National Football League and concussions. The NFL has discussed increasing fines after reports of recent helmet-related injuries. Moreover, fans have noticed an increase in penalties during the game as a result of players leading with their heads. But, has all this talk resulted from an increase awareness of brain trauma? While it is true that players and doctors are more aware of the risks involved, I’m slightly skeptical that, that is the only driving force.

The most likely catalyst are the new health insurance negotiations with the players. The players have argued that their insurance coverage is inadequate considering the value they contribute to the sport, and the costs inflicted on their families after they retire. Consequently, many players have demanded health insurance upgrades, which undoubtedly will increase costs of providing such care.  However, like any business, the NFL is always looking to reduce costs.

While I have no doubt that the League cares for its players, certain economic incentives come into play with these negotiations.  If the League foresees the possibility of accepting player demands down the line, it will need to reduce long-term costs.  One way of doing that is reducing player injuries for one of the most violent sports.

If penalizing helmet-to-helmet hits will reduce long-term costs, expect penalties and fines to increase.  One does not need to be an expert in NFL negotiations to understand that basic economics is likely driving changes to the sport.

Photo Credit.

Obamacare: More Broken Promises, More Premium Hikes, More Lost Health Insurance

by Hans Bader on October 22, 2010

in Deregulate to Stimulate, Economy, Healthcare, Legal, Regulation

In The Washington Times, Dr. Milton R. Wolf debunks six “unkeepable Obamacare promises” that have already been shown to be false.  For example, President Obama promised that his health care overhaul would not raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 a year: “I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

But as Wolf notes, Obamacare’s “new excise taxes on pharmaceuticals and medical products will, of course, by necessity be passed on to the patients who depend on these lifesaving medicines, pacemakers, MRI machines or even tongue depressors.”  And Nancy Pelosi promised that Obamacare would create 4 million new jobs, 400,000 almost immediately, none of which ever materialized.

A political commentator notes that her family’s insurance premiums just went up by 45 percent, while the coverage became worse. One of her readers lost her insurance, after her family’s policy was canceled by the insurer due to Obamacare’s legal prohibitions.

We earlier discussed how Obamacare will create pointless red tape and busywork for doctors, and how it has already led to big premium increases, and the elimination of some popular health plans.  It also includes a $60 billion insurance excise tax that will be passed on to patients, and tax increases on some investors and homeowners starting in 2013.

Restricting What People Eat, Based on the Ignorance of Food Snobs

by Hans Bader on October 17, 2010 · 2 comments

in Health and Illness, Healthcare, Nanny State, Personal Liberty, Precaution & Risk, Regulation, Zeitgeist

There are increasing calls for the government to restrict salty food and fast-food restaurants, and tax fast food, to curb obesity.  This is especially true in the aftermath of the passage of Obamacare, which will shift more health care costs to taxpayers, creating the appearance of a public-health rationale for restricting what people eat.  One city even imposed a moratorium on new fast food restaurants.

But there is little evidence that fast food causes obesity. Eating a hamburger won’t make you fat — as I noted earlier, hamburgers are healthier and less fatty than other foods not hated by food snobs, like Quiche Lorraine. (I had four quarter-pound cheeseburgers last night, with fries — the usual number when I have hamburgers for dinner – and I am not fat;  although admittedly, the burgers were home-made, and thus made of leaner ground beef than that used in many restaurant burgers.)

Even if people who eat at fast-food restaurants are fatter than the public at large, there is little reason to believe that the fast food made them fat. It is more likely a manifestation of the socioeconomic class of people who comprise most of their customers. Less affluent people tend to be fatter in America than more affluent people, even in areas with fewer fast-food restaurants – and people who eat out frequently may well be fatter than those who don’t, regardless of whether they eat at a fast-food restaurant or a more upscale restaurant.

And many people who eat at fast-food restaurants are not fat at all. For example, when I ate mostly at McDonald’s (because I worked there at the time), I lost 10 pounds over the course of a summer. Since such people are not overweight, taxing the fast food they eat will do nothing to reduce obesity. It simply imposes a regressive tax on people of modest means.

The FDA is now seeking to cut the amount of salt on our food, even though prevailing salt levels do no harm to most people, and cutting salt consumption will actually harm some people. Ironically, if salt levels are curbed, people will compensate by eating fattier food. There seems to be a trade-off between salt and fat. Low-fat foods sometimes contain added salt to make them palatable to dieters. When I lived in Irvine, California, where the shelves of the grocery store seemed full of low-fat foods, I checked the sodium levels. I found that the sodium levels of low-fat foods were slightly higher than the regular or full-fat versions. If the high sodium levels of such low-fat foods are forced down by FDA regulations, people may react by returning to consumption of the fattier foods, resulting in rising obesity levels. The government’s anti-salt crusade may thus result in its anti-fat crusade backfiring.

← Previous Entries