“A Virtual War On The Poor And Middle Class”: Give House Republicans Credit For Producing A Budget This Cruel
Everyone condemns politicians for being too quick to pander, too concerned with doing the popular thing, too willing to hide what they really believe in order to curry favor with an unmerciful electorate. So when a group of politicians throws caution to the wind and tells us what they really think despite the political risk, they deserve our praise. So it is with the House Republicans, who have just released their new budget.
That isn’t to say the budget is free of gimmickry or outlandish projections (we’ll get to that in a moment). But let’s look at some of the rather notable things it would do:
Turn Medicare into a voucher program. This is accompanied by a lot of rhetoric about how the magic of the market will hold down costs (just as it has with private insurance — oh, wait) and free seniors from the tyranny of their government insurance plan. Let’s see how that will go over.
Roll back the Affordable Care Act’s expansion of Medicaid and lay the groundwork for further cuts. All those millions of low-income Americans who got coverage through the expansion are suffering terribly, because “Medicaid’s promises are empty, its goals are unmet, and its dollars are wasted.” House Republicans would liberate them from this oppression by taking away their health insurance. The rest of the program would be block-granted so that states could have “flexibility,” which in practice means the flexibility to dump even more patients from their coverage.
Repeal the rest of the ACA. The subsidies that have allowed millions of people to afford insurance? Gone. Protection against denials for preexisting conditions? Not anymore. If you were expecting this to be accompanied by a few comically vague words about “patient-centered reforms” with which the ACA would be replaced while 16 million people are wondering what to do about the coverage they lost, then you’ve been paying attention.
Cut regulations on Wall Street. They’ve been having a real hard time over there, and they could use a helping hand.
Cut environmental regulations. Let’s face it, if the environment is ever going to learn to take care of itself, it needs a little tough love.
Cut Pell grants, which they describe as “targeting Pell Grants to students who need the most assistance.”
Block-grant food stamps, or turn them into a “State Flexibility Fund.” There’s that word again.
Most of these ideas are presented without any actual dollar figures attached to them, but there is “a magic asterisk” in a table located in an appendix, as Max Ehrenfreund points out. This is more than a trillion dollars of savings they claim they’ll get from “Other Mandatory” spending. Ehrenfreund explains:
Other than health care and Social Security, mandatory spending includes a range of programs such as food stamps, disability payments for veterans, the earned income tax credit, and Pell grants for college students. The budget document did not specify which would be cut. Even presuming very large cuts to these programs, though, it was still unclear how lawmakers expected to come up with $1.1 trillion, said Bob Greenstein, president of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
By comparison, the Republican majority in the House voted in favor of reducing the budget for food stamps in 2013. The controversial measure passed only narrowly, with every Democrat and a few Republicans opposed. Many worried the cut was too severe, but it totaled $40 billion, just a sliver of the savings claimed in this week’s proposal.
At this stage, it isn’t so terrible for their proposals to lack specificity; this part of the budget process is meant to sketch a broad outline, while later legislation will set all the particulars. But let’s give the House Republicans credit. They aren’t shying away from talking about voucherizing Medicare (as their Senate colleagues did), and the rest of the document lays out a virtual war on the poor and middle class. They may toss the word “opportunity” in here and there, but the document is a bracing statement of Republican ideology.
Which is as it should be. Sure, the White House is going to criticize it, because the Democrats’ priorities are very different. Now we can have a debate. Should we turn Medicare into a voucher program? Should we toss millions of people off Medicaid and take away the subsidies that allow millions more to afford insurance? Should we cut food stamps and education grants? What are the alternatives? Those are the questions that debate should address, and then the two sides will have to arrive at a budget that incorporates the answers.
By: Paul Waldman, Senior Writer, The American Prospect; The Plum Line Blog, The Washington Post, March 18, 2015
“An Alternate History”: The 3 Stages Of ObamaCare Trutherism
As we approach the March 4 oral arguments for King v. Burwell, the Supreme Court case that may decide the fate of ObamaCare, it’s worth delving further into a legal argument that approaches 9/11 truther levels of insanity.
As I observed in a recent piece for The Week, there are two ways that the argument can proceed in its attempt to establish that the Affordable Care Act does not authorize health insurance subsidies on federally established state exchanges. The first is to say that no matter what lawmakers intended to accomplish, they mangled the letter of the law to say that the subsidies will not flow to such exchanges. Whoops.
The other argument, fully embraced by the law’s opponents at the Supreme Court, is that legislators intended to deny subsidies to the states — even though that would go against everything they set out to accomplish.
These are both terrible arguments; one would deny millions of people health insurance over the equivalent of a typo, while the other flies in the face of common sense and the historical record. But they permit opponents of the ACA to switch from one to the other as a means of evading devastating objections to any individual argument.
A classic example of a pundit engaging in this dance is Ramesh Ponnuru, who tries to split the difference between the two variants. His column in Bloomberg is a useful distillation of the three stages of Affordable Care Act trutherism.
Ponnuru starts out by suggesting that the letter of the law is clear — “nowhere does the law authorize subsidies for plans purchased on those federally run exchanges.” But you can arrive at this conclusion only by using terrible, unworkable methods of statutory construction. You don’t have to take my word for it — the brief submitted by major legal scholars, including Ronald Reagan’s solicitor general and one of the country’s foremost experts in statutory construction, explains this in clear detail.
When you focus on the statute as a whole, rather than on the isolated phrase that appears to confine subsidies to the exchanges established by state governments, it is clear that exchanges established by the federal government on the state’s behalf are “[e]xchange[s] established by the State,” as the statute defines them. Indeed, the ACA is an excellent illustration of why phrases in statutes should be read in context. Doing so produces a coherent reading of the statute’s purpose, whereas the reading of the ACA’s opponents, represented by Jonathan Adler and Michael Cannon, produces numerous anomalies and puts the statute at war with itself.
There’s a reason why Adler and Cannon haven’t been content to rest on the typo argument. It sounds superficially plausible in a seminar room, but in the broader world, people are going to wonder why literally none of the relevant federal or state officials read the statute in accordance with its allegedly clear and unambiguous meaning. (If the statute is not clear and ambiguous, under well-settled precedent the courts are supposed to defer to the judgment of the IRS, which will be responsible for administering the subsidies.)
As a sort of way station between the two arguments, then, Ponnuru proceeds to an argument we can label, “Looks like those clowns in Congress did it again. What a bunch of clowns.” In other words, various members of Congress had different intentions, many weren’t really paying careful attention — who can say what Congress was really trying to do? As Ponnuru writes, lawmakers are “generally not detail-oriented people.”
There is a grain of truth to this argument — Congress is a “they,” not an “it,” as social scientists say, and we should be careful in making broad generalizations. Nonetheless, everybody makes reasonable judgments about what Congress is trying to accomplish, not least because it would otherwise be impossible to practice law or interpret history. We can understand why the Wilmot Proviso, for example, broke down on sectional rather than partisan lines without claiming to know the precise subjective intentions of each and every member of Congress.
And in this case, the idea that we can’t reasonably infer what Congress was trying to do is absurd. The amicus brief written by Nicholas Bagley, Thomas Merrill, Gillian Metzger, and Abbe Gluck is particularly strong on this point. Federal backstops are not some mysterious new innovation of the ACA — they’re a bog standard part of cooperative federalism. They’re inserted in statutes when Congress wants to ensure that benefits of programs administered primarily by states will flow to citizens even if the states decline to participate.
Congress did not intend for the federal backstop to fail, and it was universally understood that the insurance exchanges could not work without tax credits and the individual mandate. There’s only a mystery here if you hate the ACA so much that you’ve become willfully blind to what it’s trying to accomplish and how it relates to previous statutes in the New Deal/Great Society tradition.
As such, it makes sense that the ACA’s opponents would develop an alternate history that can actually reconcile their reading of the statute with an explanation of Congress’ intentions. The Supreme Court is much less likely to strip insurance from millions of people based on what the architects of the suit initially identified as a “glitch,” than if it convinces itself that it’s upholding the will of Congress.
Ponnuru doesn’t go quite so far as to say that he’s “100 percent certain” about what the ACA’s drafters were setting out to accomplish, but he does argue that the Adler/Cannon interpretation makes sense. Denying subsidies on federally established exchanges, Ponnuru asserts, is “not at all absurd in principle.” After all, states that don’t comply with the requirements of Medicaid don’t get the money — why shouldn’t we think that the same principle of coercion is at work in the exchanges?
But the contrast with the ACA’s Medicaid expansion destroys Ponnuru’s argument rather than fortifying it. The Medicaid expansion shows how Congress proceeds when it’s actually trying to coerce states. To state the obvious, if you’re making a threat, you don’t keep the consequences of failing to comply a secret. On the flip side, legislators were well aware that some states would not or could not establish their own exchanges, and this is why they wanted to establish a backstop.
The weakness of all these arguments explains why apologists for the latest legal war on the ACA like to alternate between them. If a critic points out that you should take the context of the entire statute into account, just say that Congress was consciously trying to coerce the states, not create a federal backstop. When people point out that this is nonsense, return to asserting that Congress messed up the language. Repeat as necessary.
Hopefully, at least five justices will see through this game of legal three-card monte.
By: Scott Lemieux, The Week, February 20, 2015
“Forget About Repealing Obamacare”: Too Many “Message” Votes Have Put The GOP In A Bind
If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again? That certainly seems to be the motto of House Republicans. Last week, the House GOP took its 56th vote to repeal the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama’s signature health care reform law.
The bill’s prospects for consideration in the Senate are low and the president has repeatedly promised to veto such a measure anyway. After 56 tries, the House votes to repeal the health care law have become so commonplace that hardly anyone in Washington even blinks an eye at them anymore. Even the president says he’s lost count of how many repeal votes there have been. If House Republicans are serious in their quest to roll back the Affordable Care Act, why do they keep pursuing a strategy they know is doomed to fail?
They do it because these multiple repeal votes aren’t a serious attempt to void the health care law. They are merely symbolic message votes. Voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act was a popular campaign message for candidates on the right, and the recent House vote gave them a chance to fulfill their election year promises.
The repeal votes also give the Republican party a platform to continue talking about their opposition to the health law and to highlight its differences with the president. However, too many “message” votes may have also put the party in a bind. After 56 votes on essentially the same piece of legislation, the Republican party has faced criticism, according to The Hill, for failing to articulate an alternative plan. The repeated symbolic votes also expose the party to criticism for failing to lead in a critical policy area. The time spent in fruitless endeavors to repeal the law could have instead been used to negotiate on policies to fix the Affordable Care Act’s weaknesses. When it comes to health care policy, Republicans have simply become the party of no.
It’s time to switch tactics. Following the House votes last week, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., and Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., released a proposal for an alternative health care plan. The proposal is a good first step and perhaps necessary as, for the first time, three House Republicans voted against repeal of the Affordable Care Act in protest of their party’s apparent lack of a plan to replace it.
In addition to putting an actual health care plan on the table, Republicans may also want to consider trying to make changes to the current health care law in pieces. There could be opportunity for negotiation on aspects of the law that remain unpopular, such as the medical device tax, the Medicare Independent Payment Advisory Board and the definition of a full-time work week. Further, the Supreme Court ruling on the King v. Burwell case later this year regarding the legality of the subsidies being provided for the purchase of health insurance on the federal exchanges could provide Republicans with another opportunity to change the law. If the Supreme Court rules against the subsidies, a legislative fix may be necessary. By taking advantage of these opportunities, the party might be able to make the law more palatable for its constituency and improve its credibility in the process.
House Republicans have made their disdain for the Affordable Care Act very clear. A 57th vote to repeal the law will not be necessary, especially since it, too, would be doomed to fail as long as Obama is in office. However, it’s entirely possible we’ll see one. By focusing strictly on repeal of the entire law, Republicans risk giving the impression that they are completely unwilling to engage in meaningful debate on health care policy. The party should instead work to improve the law and continue putting forward ideas to do so.
A great example of this can be found at the state level. Following the Supreme Court’s decision that the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion was optional, several Republican governors have proposed alternative Medicaid plans to the administration. Some have already been successful in putting their imprint on the president’s initial policy because they came to the table in a serious manner. Republicans at the federal level would do well to follow suit.
By: Cary Gibson, a Government Relations Consultant with Prime Policy Group; Thomas Jefferson Street Blog, U. S. News and World Report, February 10, 2015
“Bait And Switch”: Introducing Obamcare Lite; What The New GOP Health Reform ‘Alternative’ Really Tells Us
Plainly wounded by the Plum Line’s mockery, some congressional Republicans have finally unveiled a plan to replace the Affordable Care Act with their own health care reform. Is it serious? It’s certainly serious enough to examine and judge on its merits. Will it become the plan around which Republicans will unite? I doubt it, just because it’s hard to imagine Republicans ever uniting around a plan to do anything proactive on health care, though that’s always possible.
What’s really remarkable about this plan is that for all the claims we’ll hear about how it undoes the tyrannical horror of Obamacare, the Republicans’ version of health care reform has accepted most of the fundamental goals and regulatory paths of the law they so deeply despise. This plan — authored by Senators Richard Burr and Orrin Hatch and Rep. Fred Upton — is little more than Obamacare Lite. Though the devil is in the details — and there are some devilish ones — this tells us that Barack Obama has for all intents and purposes won the health care argument, at least as far as it concerns government’s role in health care.
Here are some of the provisions, which I’ve copied from their synopsis:
- Ensure NO ONE can be denied coverage based on their pre-existing condition;
- Prohibit insurance companies from imposing lifetime limits on a consumer;
- Adopt an age rating ratio that limits the amount an older individual will pay to no more than five times what a younger individual pays (5 to 1) as a baseline, unless a state affirmatively elects to have a different ratio;
- Require health plans to offer dependent coverage up to age 26, unless a state opts out of this provision;
- Ensure guaranteed renewability for patients to be able to renew their coverage;
- Create a new “continuous coverage protection” that rewards individuals moving from one health market to another — regardless of whether in the individual, small group, or large employer markets — by allowing them to get a similar plan at a similar cost and not be rated on health status.
In addition, they would reduce the availability of subsidies from their current 400 percent of the poverty level to 300 percent of the poverty level, and repeal the Medicaid expansion but allow poor people not on Medicaid to get subsidies. The subsidies also would no longer be tied to the actual cost of insurance, and they’d be a tax credit instead of a direct subsidy at the point of sale. There’s also a provision replacing the “Cadillac Tax” on high-value plans with a provision removing the deductibility of employer health care plans that cost over a certain level.
If all that’s making your eyes glaze over, consider it this way: Again and again in the Republican plan, what they do is take a provision or principle in the Affordable Care Act and essentially say, “We want to do that too, we’ll just do it a little less generously.” No denials for pre-existing conditions? It’s in there, but there are some important caveats (which I’ll get to in a moment). No lifetime limits on coverage? In there. Young people up to age 26 can stay on their parents’ plan? Yes, but a state could opt out. Subsidies for middle-class people? In there, just up to 300 percent of the poverty level. Coverage for the poor? Yes, just up to 100 percent of poverty instead of 138 percent. Tax on high-value plans? Yep, just in a different way. Government-set limit on how much insurers could vary premiums by age? Yes, but the ratio would be expanded from 3-1 up to 5-1. A mandated list of “essential health benefits” for all plans? Yes, but the states would determine the list instead of the federal government, with more flexibility.
In all these cases, they aren’t looking for some free-market alternative that will supposedly deliver even better results. They’re accepting government’s role in both regulating insurance and in helping people pay for it; they just want to make the benefits not so attractive.
There are a few exceptions. They would repeal both the individual and employer mandates, which by now even Democrats are not particularly enthusiastic about (at this point I think most Democrats would be happy to junk the employer mandate if they got something in return, though the individual mandate could be a different story). And most significantly, the plan abandons the fundamental coverage guarantee the Affordable Care Act provides, while essentially trying to convince you that’s not what it does.
This is a critical point. Under the ACA, no one will ever be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition. Ever. Medical underwriting, in which insurers comb through your history to see if they don’t want to cover you or if they should charge you huge premiums, is over. The Hatch-Burr-Upton plan is presented as though it does the same thing. Note that bullet point above: “Ensure NO ONE can be denied coverage based on their pre-existing condition.” In their executive summary, this point is the one sentence in the document that is highlighted in bold.
But actually, it’s not quite true. Their plan has a one-time open enrollment period for the uninsured; if you don’t get coverage during that time, you’re out of luck, and insurers will be free to deny you coverage. If you have coverage now but lose it, say because you lost your job, you’d have a limited amount of time (they don’t specify how long) to enroll in a new plan; if that time expired, you’d also be out of luck.
They would probably argue that they’re putting the responsibility on individuals, and all they have to do is take advantage of it. But that’s a very different thing from a guarantee. And that may be the biggest difference between the Affordable Care Act and this plan. The ACA tries to achieve universal coverage, and this plan doesn’t.
Frankly, that isn’t all that surprising, because universal coverage was never a goal conservatives had for health care. In recent days some of them have been arguing for something similar to this plan — see Michael Strain or Ramesh Ponnuru — and what they say about the subject is that they want universal catastrophic coverage, meaning everyone should have access to a bare-bones plan that will cover them not for ordinary medical expenses but only when a major illness or accident brings those expenses to a level that almost no one could afford. Those catastrophic plans are usually paired with Medical Savings Accounts for people to pay for everything else — a more market-based approach.
But the Hatch-Burr-Upton plan says nothing explicitly about catastrophic plans, and it doesn’t claim universal coverage as a goal. Its approach is that coverage will be there if you’re on the ball enough to get it at the right time. And if you aren’t, tough luck.
So there is something of a bait-and-switch going on. On provision after provision, this Republican plan promises to give all the benefits of the ACA, at least the ones that score highly in polls. It accepts that government will regulate health insurance and help people pay for it, even if that help is substantially less helpful. Looking at that, we might say that Republicans have accepted the ACA’s foundation, and that part of the health care argument is over. But they still aren’t willing to move substantially toward universal coverage. The ACA doesn’t achieve universal coverage either (the reasons why are a topic for another day), but it tries much harder to move down that road. So the new GOP “alternative” to Obamacare tells us that some Republicans, at least, have ceded a whole lot of ground in the broader debate over government involvement in health care, but it appears that’s one bridge they aren’t yet willing to cross.
By: Paul Waldman, Senior Writer, The American Prospect; Contributing Writer, The Plum Line, The Washington Post, February 5, 2015
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 