HEALTHCARE:
CBO: Obamacare Premiums Will Increase Faster Than Private Plans
“Obamacare health insurance premiums will grow faster than either private policies or the federal government in coming years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. In a report released Monday, the CBO issued updated budget projections showing that “premiums for policies sold through the exchanges are expected to increase more rapidly than the underlying trend in spending” between 2016 and 2018. The CBO projects that the average premium for Obamacare policies will increase by 8.5 percent annually in those years, while federal spending is expected to grow by just below 5 percent per year over the same period. The report identifies two possible reasons for the projected increase: First, “reinsurance payments that the government makes to insurance plans whose enrollees incur particularly high costs for medical care will be phased out over the next two years,” which will force insurers to raise premiums to make up those costs. According to Investor’s Business Daily, “The White House delayed phasing out its three-year reinsurance program in 2014,” which have allowed insurers to collect reimbursements once a patient’s costs top $45,000 through 2015. Starting in 2016, though, “reinsurance won’t kick in until costs top $90,000 – something the IBD says “could add about 5 percent to premiums next year.” In addition, “plans initially offered through the exchanges appeared to have, in general, lower payment rates for providers, narrower networks of providers, and tighter management of their subscribers’ use of health care than do employment-based plans.” The CBO anticipates that, “many plans will not be able to sustain such low provider payment rates or such narrow networks over the next few years, placing upward pressure on exchange premiums.” In contrast, the CBO projects that, “private health insurance spending per enrollee will grow by an average of 4.3 percent per year over the 2014–2018 period,” which represents “a downward revision in such spending of roughly 5 percent in 2016,” compared to previous estimates…”
http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/10/obamacare-premiums-will-increase-faster-than-private-plans-cbo-says/
The shrinking cost of Obamacare
“The projected costs of Obamacare are dropping. That’s the conclusion of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which forecasts that the federal health program will cost $142 billion, or 11 percent, less over the next decade than it had earlier projected. The agency cited two primary reasons for the lower-than-expected cost: a slower rise in health care premiums, and fewer than expected enrollees. Spending by private health insurers rose less in 2013 than in previous years, which the agency said was far below its own estimates. That, in turn, is leading to smaller increases in premiums, while slightly fewer people are expected to sign up via the exchanges than the CBO had earlier forecast. Given that critics have targeted the health care overhaul as unaffordable, the projection of lower spending could be seen as a positive for the law. Still, the projected reduction in spending only makes a slight dent in the overall cost, with the total outlay now pegged at $1.21 trillion over the next decade. That’s down from the CBO’s January estimate of $1.35 billion in costs. While that’s good news for Obamacare supporters, the law, also known as the Affordable Care Act, still facs several challenges. One significant threat is a case now being heard by the Supreme Court, King v. Burwell, which presents a challenge to the tax credits offered to consumers in 34 states who bought health insurance through federally run exchanges. The decision isn’t expected until this summer, but if the court opts to throw out the subsidies that make many Obamacare plans affordable for families, it could leave millions of households on the hook for paying full monthly premiums. About 87 percent of those who have signed up for coverage under the ACA are receiving a subsidy…”
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-shrinking-cost-of-obamacare/
CBO Downgrades Obamacare’s Enrollment And Subsidy Projections
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2015/03/10/cbo-downgrades-obamacares-enrollment-projections-subsidy-costs/
Defining Obamacare ‘success’ down, one more time
“The latest trumpeting of Obamacare’s “success,” based on a new budgetary report, is an example of the low expectations we have come to have for government programs. Over the next decade, according to a new estimate from the Congressional Budget Office, Obamacare will add $1.2 trillion to federal deficits. It will do this even though it raises taxes by more than $500 billion over that time — that $1.2 trillion figure is a net cost. And this is now being heralded as a success … why? Because Obamacare was supposed to be even more of a fiscal drag. The latest estimate shows the net effect on deficits will be $142 billion less than what the number-crunchers said in their previous forecast. Woo-hoo, right? Not really. This figure does not mean the law is saving us money; it means we are set to borrow only about 90 percent as much as we expected to borrow. We would still borrow more than $1.2 trillion to pay for 10 years of Obamacare. And more than two-thirds of the “savings” — a.k.a. the reduction of Obamacare borrowing from huge to not-quite-as-huge — can be attributed to the fact the latest estimate shows the law will cover 2 million fewer people than previously thought. And by “previously thought,” I mean all the way back in … January. If we compare the numbers in this estimate to the ones in CBO’s estimate after Obamacare became law in March 2010, the discrepancy is even larger. Back in March 2010, CBO estimated the effects on the uninsured population through 2019. Back then, CBO estimated there would 32 million more people with health insurance in 2019 than if Obamacare had not become law. In the new report, CBO says in 2019 that figure will be 24 million — a full one-quarter lower than the estimate five years ago. Now, to those 24 million people, this is no small feat. But in the big picture, when we compare Obamacare’s results to the way it was sold five years ago (remember when it was going to reduce deficits? good times, good times) the biggest change appears to be in the way its backers define “success.”
http://kylewingfield.blog.ajc.com/2015/03/10/defining-obamacare-success-down-one-more-time/#__federated=1
How Obamacare Extensions Could Hurt Taxpayers in the Long Run
“With yet another Obamacare enrollment extension for those who are discovering they’re being fined for not having insurance as they complete their 2014 taxes, an industry expert is detailing how such an extension — and likely another one next year — could hurt taxpayers in the long run. “The harmful piece is if consumers begin to think, ‘Wow, we’re going to have this long open enrollment every year, so I have plenty of time to sign up,’” Laura Adams, a senior analyst for InsuranceQuotes.com, a company she said is unbiased and is “like Switzerland” on the issue. “They’ll tend to procrastinate and delay getting coverage. “[Then] they may have to go to hospital … get services they don’t have coverage for and that ends up hurting taxpayers when people can’t foot the bill,” Adams said, speculating on what more extensions to open enrollment seasons could do. What’s more, she said this refutes the whole point of Obamacare. “[It’s] trying to prevent us from having to take on the burden of uninsured people’s debt,” she said. Overall, Adams said she thinks the government, despite its extensions, is trying to make the enrollment period short so people will avoid thinking there will be a second chance they could sign up. “It’s the governments way of trying to force our hands in getting coverage now, even if we’re not sick,” she continued. “[The government doesn’t] want to get into a situation where they make it months and months and months. There’s no incentive.” From the insurance companies’ standpoint, the extensions might mess with the complicated forecasting they do to set rates for the next year, but Adams said making the enrollment period longer is actually a boon for them as they get more customers. Even with the financial ding that some people are going to experience this year as a reminder that they have to sign up for health insurance by law, Adams said she thinks the same extension will happen next year as well. “I can’t imagine that every single uninsured American will be in the loop on this information in a year,” Adams said…”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/03/10/how-obamacare-extensions-could-hurt-taxpayers-in-the-long-run/
Obamacare’s 1095-A Nightmare
“Tax season is stressful enough. But if you are like countless miserable Americans trapped in the Obamacare 1095-A abyss, it’s hell on stilts on a Segway teetering over the South Rim of the Grand Canyon. The screw-ups, incompetence and bureaucratic blame avoidance over the health insurance exchange tax forms make the healthcare.gov website fiasco look like a flawless product launch. How do I know? My family inexplicably got ensnared in the 1095-A paperwork pit. It’s a government roach motel: Taxpayers check in, but they can never check out. In 2013, our private high-deductible PPO from Anthem Blue Cross got canceled because of “changes from health care reform (also called the Affordable Care Act or ACA).” Millions of others like us in the individual market for health insurance — including self-employed people, small-business owners, writers, artists and home-based entrepreneurs — suffered the same fate. My husband reluctantly contacted Colorado’s state health insurance exchange, “Connect for Health Colorado,” just to see what our options were. Months later, we settled on purchasing a new non-Obamacare plan directly from a different private insurer, Rocky Mountain Health. The provider network is much narrower than the Anthem plan we had before the feds intervened. Our two kids’ dental care is no longer covered, and we’ve had our insurance turned down at an urgent care clinic — something that had never happened before. Better off? Bullcrap. But wait, it gets worse. Somewhere along the way, the worker bees at Connect for Health Colorado dragooned us into an Obamacare exchange plan offered by Rocky Mountain Health without our knowledge or consent. (How else has the White House inflated Obamacare enrollment figures? Things that make you go “hmm.”) Last month, we received an IRS 1095-A form, which, much to our shock and chagrin, indicated that we had paid Obamacare premiums every month during 2014. It took hours of time on the phone and Internet to receive an explanation from Connect for Health Colorado on how exactly this happened. Here was the government’s response, word for incomprehensible word: “We apologize for the delay in responding to your email. After checking your account we are showing you might have had coverage from October 2014 to June 2014. Please call the number below to speak with a Customer Service Representative if this information is incorrect.” “Might” have had coverage? From “October 2014 to June 2014″? The saga continues. We were finally able to un-enroll after being auto-enrolled in the Obamacare plan. Then, after being bounced around by the state government health exchange to various voicemail dead ends and back, with hours of migraine-inducing, on-hold music in between, we were told there’s absolutely nothing wrong with the 1095-A form — which shows payment of premiums we didn’t pay to an Obamacare plan we never enrolled in and didn’t want in the first place! This is just one little horror story. In Minnesota, thousands are still waiting for 1095-A forms that were supposed to arrive on Jan. 31. In California, at least 800,000 taxpayers received screwed-up 1095-As. As a result, some 50,000 people filed the wrong form. Another 750,000 are being told they’ll get corrected forms this month. Hah. Good luck with that. The costs in time, money and anxiety to hardworking families dealing with this paperwork perdition are enormous. Unknown numbers of people are still waiting for their forms as the April 15 tax-filing deadline looms. More face the added expense and aggravation of filing amended returns through no fault of their own. Where’s the rest of the media — most of whom have been insulated from these problems because they get their health insurance through their employers?…”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/03/11/obamacares_1095-a_nightmare_125894.html
Rand Paul pushes repeal of Obama tax law despised by Americans living abroad
Says Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) has forced many to renounce U.S. citizenship
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/10/rand-paul-pushes-repeal-of-obama-tax-law-despised-/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
US: 341,000 Michiganians now in Health Insurance Marketplace
“The federal government says 341,183 Michigan residents have enrolled for coverage through the Health Insurance Marketplace under a provision of the Affordable Care Act. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced the new enrollment figures Tuesday. It says the figures are through Feb. 22. It says 88 percent of those enrolled qualified for a tax credit, and the credits averaged $236 per month. The report says 48 percent of Michiganians in the program paid $100 or less per month after tax credits. The U.S. Supreme Court is considering a challenge to the subsidies in Michigan and other states where residents depend on the federal health exchange, rather than state-established exchanges. The court’s decision is expected in late June.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/10/us-341000-michiganians-now-in-health-insurance-mar/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
Over 21,000 South Dakota residents select health insurance
“Federal health officials say 21,393 South Dakota residents selected health insurance plans during the second enrollment period under a provision of the Affordable Care Act. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced the new enrollment numbers Tuesday. The figures are through Feb. 22. Officials had estimated that up to 27,626 South Dakota residents were eligible to select health plans through the federal marketplace healthcare.gov. The federal report shows that 86 percent of those who selected plans in South Dakota qualified for a tax credit, and the credits averaged $228 per month. The report says 47 percent of South Dakotans paid $100 or less per month after tax credits. The U.S. Supreme Court is considering a challenge to the subsidies in South Dakota and other states where residents depend on the federal marketplace, rather than state-established websites. The court’s decision is expected in late June…”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/10/over-21000-south-dakota-residents-select-health-in/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
Obamacare enrollment among minorities remains a challenge
“Obamacare enrollment went much better this year, but the Obama administration is still struggling to reach highly uninsured minority populations. The percentage of Latino enrollees remained flat compared to last year — at 11 percent — while the share of black enrollees fell, from 17 percent to 14 percent, according to data released Tuesday by the Department of Health and Human Services. Minorities, and Latinos in particular, have higher uninsured rates than whites, so advocates for the Affordable Care Act prioritized outreach to them this year. Latino outreach hit some bumps during the 2014 enrollment season, as the launch of the Spanish-language version of healthcare.gov was delayed. While officials acknowledged the lack of percentage gains among Latinos and blacks, they said that may not give the whole picture since more enrollees this year declined to state their race when signing up for insurance plans. And they emphasized that more Latinos are enrolled in health plans this year even if they don’t make up a larger share of enrollees. “Even though the percentage stayed the same for Latinos, the absolute number did go up,” said Meena Seshamani, director of HHS’ Office of Health Reform. “We also need to look at the overall uninsured rate and how that has gone down to a historic low.” Young people are the other major group Affordable Care Act advocates have targeted, as they tend to be healthier and can thereby drive premiums down. Just like last year, they make up 28 percent of total enrollees. Many had worried that enrollment among young adults would lag, but officials said they think an adequate number have signed up. “In terms of the number of young people enrolled, we feel pretty good where we are with that,” said Kevin Griffis, HHS’ acting assistant secretary for public affairs. The data was included in a detailed snapshot of 2015 enrollment the administration released Tuesday. Earlier this week, it was announced that 11.7 million Americans have signed up for health insurance plans on either healthcare.gov or state-run insurance marketplaces…”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamacare-enrollment-among-minorities-remains-a-challenge/article/2561318?custom_click=rss
Burwell Defends Nationwide Subsidies for Health Law
“The fact that 87 percent of the 11.7 million people who got covered in the health law’s individual exchange market received subsidies shows “just how important the tax credits are to millions of Americans and to the insurance markets in those states,”Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell said on Monday. The subsidies are at the core of a Supreme Court case against Burwell and the Obama administration that was argued March 4. The challengers contend that people in the 34 states that did not set up their own marketplaces should not get federal tax credits to subsidize the costs of their insurance under the health care law. Burwell said the Obama administration is “confident that we will prevail” because she said the structure of the law is clear. “Those who support this lawsuit believe that the law should be dismantled or repealed and they are content to back the progress that we have achieved,” she told supporters at a White House event. The numbers that Burwell released Monday update previous estimates that the administration released on Feb. 17 showing that 11.4 million people had enrolled. A week later, administration officials provided a partial update with data from federal exchanges only. The new numbers include data from both federal and state-run marketplaces through Feb. 22…”
http://blogs.rollcall.com/healthopolis/burwell-defends-nationwide-subsidies-for-health-law/?dcz=
7.7M ObamaCare customers qualify for subsidies in 2015
“Nearly nine in 10 people who signed up for healthcare from the federal government this year qualify for subsidies, the Obama administration announced Tuesday. A total of 7.7 million people would receive subsidies this year in the roughly three-dozen states using HealthCare.gov – a figure that has held steady since ObamaCare’s first year. The Obama administration touted the figure Tuesday to show that the vast majority of people in states using the federal exchange rely on subsidies as the Supreme Court weighs a case that could eliminate them. A total of 34 states using HealthCare.gov could lose subsidies if the court rules against ObamaCare later this spring in King v. Burwell, a GOP-backed lawsuit. A vast amount of federal spending is at stake in the decision – about $2 billion per month, according to the new figures. On average, a person who qualifies for subsidies would have to pay less than one-quarter of their premium cost. The average subsidy is $263 per month. While 37 states use HealthCare.gov, only 34 are affected by King v. Burwell. Three states – Nevada, Oregon and New Mexico – had been officially approved as state exchanges before beginning to use the federal government’s platform. The figures were released as part of a 37-page enrollment report, which offers the most comprehensive glimpse to date of ObamaCare’s fate in 2015. The enrollment report covers the 11.7 million people who have signed up for ObamaCare, though not necessarily all of those who have paid for their plans. The report shows how many people qualify for subsidies, but not necessarily how many people will receive them. Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell announced the total enrollment figure of 11.7 million at a White House event on Monday, which she used as a direct appeal to the court. “These numbers show just how important the tax credits are to millions of Americans and to the insurance markets in those states,” she said, pointing to states like Texas, Florida and North Carolina…”
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/235211-vast-majority-of-obamacare-customers-to-receive-subsidies-in-2015
86 Percent of Health Law Enrollees Receive Subsidies, White House Says
“The Obama administration said Tuesday that 11.7 million Americans now have private health insurance through federal and state marketplaces, with 86 percent of them receiving financial assistance from the federal government to help pay premiums. About three-fourths of people with marketplace coverage — 8.8 million consumers — live in the 37 states served by HealthCare.gov, the website for the federal insurance exchange. The other 2.9 million people are in states that created and operate their own exchanges. Sylvia Mathews Burwell, the secretary of health and human services, underlined the importance of subsidies for people in states using the federal exchange — subsidies that could be withdrawn if the Supreme Court rules against the Obama administration in a pending case. Administration officials suggested that more than seven million people could lose subsidies, making insurance unaffordable, if the court ruled that such assistance was unavailable in the federal exchange. The plaintiffs contend that the Affordable Care Act does not allow subsidies in the federal exchange…”
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/us/11-7-million-americans-have-insurance-under-health-act.html
ObamaCare stinks even with subsidies
“Last week’s Supreme Court arguments on ObamaCare struck me as a bit irrelevant, and not just because the case won’t impact New York. The case is about whether federal subsidies are actually legal in states that didn’t set up their own insurance exchanges — but the truth is, ObamaCare is a bad deal even with the subsidies. Down here in the medical trenches, the harsh reality of the Affordable Care Act continues to play out. My patients continue to report delays in signing up for ObamaCare policies and are rarely happy with what they end up with. They all have high deductibles and a narrow network of doctors to choose from. This isn’t their fault — it’s all they can afford. Of course, without the subsidies, my blue-collar patients, many of whom work part-time jobs, wouldn’t be able to afford ObamaCare insurance at all. Keep in mind that federal subsidies cover 75 percent of ObamaCare premiums nationwide, so if the high court upholds the written language of the law, and not the Obama IRS’s decision to ignore that language, 7.5 million people will likely lose their coverage. But, again, even with the subsidies, it’s no bargain. When you use the insurance, you find that you have to pay out-of-pocket for your x-ray, ultrasound or lab work — and keep on paying for tests until you spend enough to cover your $5,000 deductible. You can’t afford the test, so you delay it…”
http://nypost.com/2015/03/09/obamacare-stinks-even-with-subsidies/
ObamaCare case looms over GOP budget
“Congressional Republicans are considering using a budget tool known as reconciliation to deliver a bill to President Obama’s desk outlining their party’s response to the Supreme Court case challenging ObamaCare. GOP aides say reconciliation is becoming an increasingly attractive option to avert the healthcare meltdown that could result from a ruling this June against ObamaCare in the King v. Burwell case. A ruling against the administration could take away subsidies from people in 37 states, many of them led by GOP governors, to buy ObamaCare on state-based health exchanges. Using reconciliation would make it much easier to get a fix to Obama’s desk because the budget process prevents a filibuster and allows the Senate to approve major policy changes in a majority vote. But it would also introduce complications to the GOP’s already thorny prospect of moving a budget bill. Budgets are always controversial, and a plan that includes fixes to ObamaCare but does not fully repeal the law could draw opposition from some Republicans. The GOP is already coming under conflicting pressures. Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) called Monday for Congress to provide transitional aid to people in danger of losing their subsidies. But Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a prospective GOP candidate for the White House, has criticized fixes that would allow ObamaCare to stand. Separately, Republicans are determined to show the Supreme Court that they have a plan of action, because they believe it will make the justices more likely to rule against ObamaCare’s subsidies. Budget reconciliation would allow Republicans to signal to the justices and to state leaders that they are working on a plan while buying themselves several months to hammer out details. Both the House and Senate have charged senior members with creating backup plans to replace the subsidies. Officials for both working groups, led by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), respectively, have said reconciliation is being considered. “Republicans are considering a number of options for repairing the damage of Obamacare. Budget reconciliation is certainly one option,” Barrasso spokeswoman Emily Schillinger wrote in an email. Barrasso told reporters last fall that he planned to “use every tool that is out there, including reconciliation,” to torpedo ObamaCare…”
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/235148-obamacare-case-looms-over-gop-budget-debate
Federalism Will Sink, Not Save, Obamacare
“The battle over insurance subsidies. With the Supreme Court on the brink of invalidating an IRS rule that provides billions of dollars of subsidies in states that did not establish Obamacare exchanges, defenders of the law have suddenly become fair-weather federalists. They argue that the Obamacare regulation must be upheld, because invalidating it would intrude on state sovereignty. Yes, you read that right: Allowing the federal government to expand the reach of Obamacare and its mandates into states that refused to create Obamacare exchanges would promote states’ rights. While this argument may seem crazy on its face, it has emerged as a Hail Mary effort to obtain the blessing of the Court’s perennial swing vote, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. This plan, however, may seriously backfire and unravel all of Obamacare, not just this provision. If the subsidy scheme is in fact unconstitutionally coercive to states, the correct remedy is to strike the law in its entirety, not salvage its legitimate parts. In order to make insurance more affordable, Obamacare pays subsidies to people who buy policies on an “exchange established by the state.” The administration expected that all 50 states would establish exchanges, but in fact more than three dozen states declined. To ensure a pain-free implementation of the law despite this fact, the Obama administration’s Internal Revenue commissioner issued a rule saying that subsidies would be paid in all states, regardless of whether they established an exchange. This rule was challenged as inconsistent with the ACA, and now the Supreme Court is poised to invalidate it in the case of King v. Burwell. Supporters of the law, recognizing that they have a weak argument based on the text of the ACA — after all, the law says subsidies are limited to an “exchange established by the state” — have turned to federalism to save Obamacare. (Curiously, they were silent on the coercive nature of Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion when it was challenged in 2012.) The argument goes something like this: Congress could not have intended to deny subsidies in states without exchanges, because that would render insurance policies unaffordable in those states, and trigger the dreaded “adverse-selection death spiral.” The Democratic Congress in 2010, they argue, would never have forced this Hobson’s choice on recalcitrant red states. Therefore, in order to promote the interests of federalism and states’ rights, the Supreme Court should interpret the statute so that subsidies are available in all states. In other words, the potential intrusion onto federalism is so severe that the justices should place a thumb on the scale in order to uphold the government’s reading of the statute, even if that is not how Congress actually designed it…”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/415130/federalism-will-sink-not-save-obamacare-josh-blackman
King v. Burwell’s Mere Existence Is Politically Remarkable
Who would have thought so many states would refuse to set up their own Obamacare exchanges?
“On Wednesday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in King v. Burwell, the case challenging the IRS’s decision to pay subsidies to lower-income health-insurance buyers in states with federal insurance exchanges — even though the Obamacare legislation authorizes subsidies only in states with exchanges “established by the state.” The Obama administration is thus in the uncomfortable position of arguing that the president’s signature law says what it doesn’t say. Nevertheless, initial analyses of the oral argument suggest the government might win. The four Democratic-appointed judges seemed determined to advance arguments that, if you look at the statute as a whole, Congress wanted to pay subsidies to lots of people, even if it didn’t say so. A similar argument was made with considerable invective in a dissent in an identical case by D.C. Circuit judge Harry Edwards, a Democratic-appointed judge who otherwise during a long career encouraged consensus and civility in a once-rancorous court. Justice Anthony Kennedy’s questions suggested there may be a fifth vote to uphold the administration’s position. Justice Kennedy asked whether the “established by the state” provision might amount to an unconstitutional commandeering of the state governments. Commandeering is legal shorthand for the widely agreed doctrine that Congress cannot command the states to adopt legislation. Instead, Congress typically offers the states money if they accept certain conditions. No highway and transportation money if you don’t establish a 55 mile-per-hour speed limit, for example, or a minimum drinking age of 21. Limiting subsidies, as the Obamacare statute does, to states that establish their own exchanges is thus not unusual; it’s typical of how Congress gets states to do what it wants. But there are limits. In the June 2012 National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius decision upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare, the Supreme Court also ruled, 7–2, that Obamacare could not compel states to vastly increase Medicaid spending or lose all Medicaid funds. Raising the ante, the court held, amounted to commandeering.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/415127/king-v-burwells-mere-existence-politically-remarkable-michael-barone
The Dilemma: Angry at Obamacare, Angrier Without It
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/03/10/the_dilemma_angry_at_obamacare_angrier_without_it_125884.html
HHS: Nearly 8M could lose Obamacare subsidies after Supreme Court ruling
“Nearly 8 million Americans could lose subsidies that help them afford Obamacare plans if the Supreme Court strikes down the administration’s interpretation the 2010 law, according to data released Tuesday. The Health and Human Services Department says roughly 7.7 million people in 37 states received tax credits to offset the cost of plans from HealthCare.gov, the federal insurance portal for states that did not set up their own health exchanges under the Affordable Care Act. The taxpayer-funded subsidies had an average monthly value of $263 per person, meaning the government would pay out roughly $24 billion for the year when multiplied across the current number of enrollees. “The figures released today tell a story of health coverage consumers rely on for financial and health security — and of coverage they don’t want to lose,” HHS Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell said. “Millions of marketplace consumers in HealthCare.gov states qualified for tax credits to make their coverage affordable and accessible.” The justices last week heard oral arguments in the case known as King v. Burwell, with challengers saying the administration is breaking the law by paying the subsidies to customers in states that rely on the federal HealthCare.gov exchange. The law says subsidies can be paid to customers in exchanges “established by the state.” If the court rules against the administration, customers in two-thirds of the states would be cut off from subsidies, which would create a crisis for both Congress and the White House…”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/10/hhs-nearly-8m-could-lose-obamacare-subsidies/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
Federal health insurance aid in doubt for nearly 8M
“Nearly 8 million people could lose up to $24 billion a year in health insurance subsidies in a Supreme Court case threatening President Barack Obama’s law, according to a government report released Tuesday. The estimates by The Associated Press show what’s at stake in the case. Health overhaul opponents argue that subsidies are illegal in some three dozen states where the federal government took charge of running the health insurance marketplaces, or exchanges. The justices heard arguments last week, and the court’s decision is expected in late June. Tuesday’s report from the Department of Health and Human Services shows that about 7.7 million people in the 37 states with federally-run markets are getting an average of $263 a month to help pay premiums. That works out to around $2 billion a month, although it may drop over the year as the number of people insured fluctuates. The biggest potential loser would be Florida, with nearly 1.5 million residents getting an average of $294 a month. That works to $440 million a month currently, or up to $5.3 billion a year for the state. The subsidies are delivered in the form of tax credits. Texas could also face significant exposure. More than 1 million residents are getting an average subsidy of $239 a month. That works out to nearly $2.9 billion a year. “The simple truth is that millions of Americans in all 50 states rely on the Affordable Care Act for tax credits to buy insurance,” HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell said earlier this week…”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/10/federal-health-insurance-aid-in-doubt-for-nearly-8/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
White House Launches ‘Next Generation ACO’ With High-Touch Value-Based Care
http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2015/03/10/obama-administration-launches-next-generation-of-value-based-care-a-high-touch-aco/
Florida could become second-largest state to expand Medicaid
“Florida lawmakers are moving forward with a closely watched proposal that could expand Medicaid for 1 million people. The GOP-controlled Florida Senate unanimously approved a bill on Tuesday that would accept federal dollars under ObamaCare to expand eligibility for Medicaid. The passage of the bill – which has been eyed by other GOP state lawmakers who have resisted the expansion – sets up the second showdown in the House in as many years. The Senate previously pushed through a Medicaid expansion bill in 2013, though it was rejected by the House. Florida Gov. Rick Scott, a Republican who was narrowly reelected last fall, has said he would support Medicaid expansion if the bill reached his desk. Florida would become the second-largest state to expand Medicaid after California. Texas, which has the second largest population of any state, has also refused to expand the program. The state has faced heavy pressure to expand the program, led by a coalition of business groups called A Healthy Florida Works. The coalition cheered the bill’s passage on Tuesday, stressing that “the business community is united” around the plan. “The Florida Senate proved again today that they are willing to do what’s right for Florida by backing an affordable, private health care coverage option for low-income, uninsured Floridians,” they wrote.”
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/235273-florida-could-become-second-largest-state-to-expand-medicaid
Florida Senate pushes alternative to Medicaid expansion
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/10/florida-senate-pushes-alternative-to-medicaid-expa/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
Utah lawmakers close in on budget without Medicaid deal
“With only days to go before the Utah Legislature adjourns, lawmakers remained at an impasse on Tuesday on Medicaid expansion and it appeared they might wrap up the budget without resolving one of the biggest spending disputes of the year. State senators were supporting a Medicaid plan proposed by the governor that would cost $25 million for two years. But lawmakers in the House of Representatives have instead put forward their own plan, which would cost about $32 million a year. With the House and Senate at impasse, Republican Gov. Gary Herbert said he would consider calling a special session to address the issue later this year. Here’s how the budget is shaping up without the Medicaid expansion…”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/10/utah-lawmakers-close-in-on-budget-without-medicaid/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
How the Clean Air Act Holds Back the American Economy
“Should Americans care about the decline of manufacturing employment? I’m inclined to think that the answer is yes. Overall employment is increasingly weighted towards the nontradable sector — particularly health care, education, and government, heavily-subsidized sectors plagued by low productivity levels. The tradable sector, meanwhile, is dominated by knowledge-intensive services, a sector that employs a relatively small number of people, and which largely excludes the vast, non-college-educated middle of the skill distribution. This isn’t to suggest that manufacturing jobs are intrinsically superior to service jobs — it’s just that capital-intensive manufacturing jobs are more likely to support high wages than service jobs. There are a number of reasons U.S. manufacturing employment has declined in recent decades. The main driver is rising productivity, which helps explain why manufacturing output has held steady as a share of GDP even as manufacturing employment has tumbled. Rising productivity is something we should absolutely welcome. But there are other contributing factors as well, including dollar appreciation, which increases the relative cost of goods manufactured in the U.S., and the high cost of complying with stringent regulations. These factors have contributed to the offshoring of manufacturing employment. Offshoring is not, in my view, an entirely bad thing. Low-wage, labor-intensive manufacturing jobs belong in the developing world. Yet these aren’t the only manufacturing jobs that are being offshored. So are capital-intensive jobs that can support high wages. Is there anything we can do to not just stop the outflow of such jobs but to generate more of them? Recently, Oren Cass observed that the Clean Air Act, widely-viewed as one of the most successful laws in modern American history, “is forcing Americans to accept substantial economic sacrifices that they cannot afford, in pursuit of environmental gains that they do not need and that are not worth the cost.” The Obama administration has issued new regulations under the Clean Air Act that will make matters worse. Instead of just rolling back this latest round of regulations, however, Cass calls for reforming the Clean Air Act to ensure that it does a better job of balancing environmental priorities with the need for economic growth. I won’t even try to summarize the maddening ins and outs of the Act, which Cass describes in detail. His main point is that one of its primary mechanisms for improving air quality is imposing far more expensive requirements on new or expanded facilities than on existing facilities. The perverse result is that many firms find it impracticable to upgrade their facilities, even when doing so would reduce pollution relative to the status quo. With this in mind, Cass calls for reforming the Clean Air Act to allow new or expanded industrial and energy-processing facilities under the same rules that apply to older plants…”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/415196/how-clean-air-act-holds-back-american-economy-reihan-salam
Supremes Protect Notre Dame from Contraception Mandate
“It would have been so easy to permit a religious exemptions from Obamacare coverage requirements that are contrary to the religious values of employers and institutions. Think of the litigation and societal conflict that could have been avoided. But that’s not how this administration rolls. Foregoing coercion would be to give up powerful leverage in the Obamacarian drive to use healthcare as a pretext for imposing its moral views on all of society. Why else would the administration try and force Catholic facilities, like Notre Dame University, to cover contraception when birth control is directly contrary to Catholic religious dogma? A lower court had ruled against Notre Dame. But in the wake of the Hobby Lobby victory, the Supreme Court has instructed the Court of Appeals to revisit the issue. From the Reuters story: The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday revived the University of Notre Dame’s religious objections to the requirement for contraception coverage under President Barack Obama’s healthcare law, throwing out a lower court decision in favor of the federal government. The justices asked the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision against the South Bend, Indiana-based Roman Catholic university in light of the June 2014 Supreme Court ruling that allowed certain privately owned corporations to seek exemptions from the provision. The case is part of national litigation concerning religious objections to the contraception provision of the 2010 Affordable Care Act, known widely as Obamacare. Good. It would be bizarre if private businesses had an opt-out from religiously offensive mandates, but not explicitly religiously-based organizations. These cases are very important, not only in their own right, but because they are stalking horses for abortion and assisted suicide.”
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/415176/supremes-protect-notre-dame-contraception-mandate-wesley-j-smith
Scott Walker’s One-Of-A-Kind Obamacare Conundrum
Liberals want to make the governor’s past decision come back to haunt him in 2016 if SCOTUS guts the law.
“No Republican presidential aspirant has a stake in the Supreme Court case that could invalidate the Affordable Care Act’s tax subsidies for millions of Americans quite like Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker. The Midwestern executive who is enjoying some of the biggest 2016 hype looks intent on keeping his distance from King v. Burwell and its consequences—but liberals in his state sound equally insistent on making sure that Walker pays a political price if a decision he made two years ago costs tens of thousands of people their health coverage. Back in 2013, Walker used Obamacare in a one-of-a-kind way, directing an estimated 77,000 people who had been enrolled in a state Medicaid program to Obamacare’s subsidized private coverage. But the Supreme Court’s ruling could put those people at risk of losing their tax credits and by extension their health insurance, possibly leaving them with nowhere to go. “I certainly hope that this would be a conversation that the national media would pick up on,” Democratic state Rep. Melissa Sargent said. “I can’t begin to understand why he’s making the decision that he is.” Walker made his move because Wisconsin’s Medicaid program was actually more generous than Obamacare’s for that group of people. He changed the state program’s eligibility so that anybody who qualified for the federal law’s tax credits would get coverage that way instead of enrolling through Medicaid. He also declined to set up a state marketplace, which means that Wisconsinites had to enroll through the federal HealthCare.gov, where the law’s opponents now argue the tax credits are illegal. (An important note: Walker’s plan did extend Medicaid coverage to people too poor to qualify for Obamacare’s subsidies, enrolling tens of thousands other low-income residents, though not through the federal law’s Medicaid expansion, which Walker declined as part of his reforms). The governor’s predicament, in a way, is a microcosm of the entire King case. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked the attorney representing the law’s opponents during oral arguments last week, in a likely play to swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy’s federalism concerns: “Do you really believe that states fully understood that their citizens were not going to get subsidies if they let the federal government” set up their exchange, as Wisconsin did? Bloomberg Politics’s Joshua Green pointed out King’s implications for Walker last week, and that raises the question of how Walker’s opponents might use it against him. Sargent and another Democratic legislator introduced a bill last week to create a state-based exchange, which would prevent people in Wisconsin from losing their tax credits, but she said she didn’t expect Walker’s support…”
http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/scott-walker-s-one-of-a-kind-obamacare-conundrum-20150309
Obama to visit VA hospital in Phoenix, the heart of last summer’s scandal
“President Obama is planning to visit Phoenix’s troubled Veterans Affairs hospital, the site of a scandal last year that caused the largest shakeup in the history of the VA. White House officials confirmed Tuesday that Obama and Secretary Robert McDonald plan to meet Friday with administrators at the Carl T. Hayden VA Medical Center. The president’s visit comes two months after he was criticized by Congress and veterans groups for not talking with Arizona veterans during a visit to the state, where he previewed his housing policies. Some members of Congress slammed Obama because he drove right past the hospital without stopping during that visit. The scandal over the medical center’s delays in providing care for veterans, some of them struggling with cancer, suicidal thoughts and other issues, sparked an investigation. It led to revelations that the problem was not limited to the Phoenix facility and that similar lapses were seen at scores of VA facilities. The revelations prompted a public uproar and cost McDonald’s predecessor, Eric K. Shinseki, his job. This time, Obama is visiting after a stop at a Democratic National Committee fundraiser and an appearance on the Jimmy Kimmel show in Los Angeles. In a background statement, a White House official said the VA “has made progress in accelerating care to veterans and addressing instances of unacceptable wait-times nationwide.” The Phoenix hospital is still mired in controversy, and several employees who work there said they were looking forward to the visit. “I hope that the visit by the president along with the VA secretary will help ensure that the administration at the Phoenix VA hospital will be held to the highest standards when it comes to caring for suicidal and intoxicated veterans,” said Brandon Coleman, a therapist and decorated veteran who said he was suspended in January for urgently warning that there was a problem with how suicidal veterans were being treated. “It’s my hope that this visit will help promote a workplace free of whistleblower harassment.” McDonald came to office in July with a mandate for reform. He announced that he wanted to make “every employee a whistleblower” and help foster a culture that “celebrates them,” after whistleblowers in Phoneix said they were harassed and silenced after they raising the wait-time issue…”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2015/03/10/obama-to-visit-va-hospital-in-phoneix-the-heart-of-last-summers-scandal/
Obama to visit Phoenix VA hospital that sparked scandal
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/10/obama-to-visit-phoenix-va-hospital-that-sparked-sc/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
Obama to finally visit the VA hospital at the center of the scandal
http://hotair.com/archives/2015/03/10/obama-to-finally-visit-the-va-hospital-at-the-center-of-the-scandal/
IMMIGRATION:
Immigrant border surge dips; crossings forecast to rise in summer
“The number of Central American children and families illegally crossing the southern border, particularly in Texas’ Rio Grande Valley, is likely to be smaller this year than last, but large enough to overwhelm shelters and courts, new Border Patrol statistics and projections show. There were 12,509 unaccompanied youths caught at the southern border during the first five months of the federal fiscal year that began in October, down 42% compared to the same time period last year, according to the latest Border Patrol figures. A total of 11,133 families were caught at the border during the same time period, 21% fewer than this time last year. That means the Border Patrol is on pace to catch about 39,000 unaccompanied children and about 53,000 families on the southern border this fiscal year, according to Adam Isacson, a senior associate at the nonprofit Washington Office on Latin America. Isacson based his projection on past immigration patterns, which tend to increase March through July. If the projections hold, it would represent a 43% decrease in unaccompanied children and an 23% decrease in families this year compared to last. But even with the projected decline, the number of families crossing the border illegally would be more than triple the number in 2013, when 14,855 family members crossed. More than half of the children and families still appear to be crossing through the Rio Grande Valley, which saw 17% fewer families compared to this time last year and nearly half as many children, the Border Patrol reported. Border Patrol officers are on pace to apprehend far fewer Honduran children and families this fiscal year compared to last: 3,758 unaccompanied children—79% fewer and the lowest total since 2012—and 12,680 families, a 63% drop, according to WOLA predictions. They are also expected to catch fewer Salvadoran children and families this year: 7,030 children, or 57% fewer than last year; 13,161 families, or 11% fewer than last year, according to WOLA. Bryan Johnson, a New York-based lawyer who works with immigrant youth and families, said the decrease in Honduran immigrants caught crossing so far this fiscal year was likely due to the Obama administration speeding deportations from the U.S. and Mexico and encouraging Central American countries to crack down on illegal immigration. “But I don’t think the conditions in those countries have changed to stop the push” for families and children to immigrate to the U.S., Johnson said, citing gang and cartel violence…”
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-border-surge-immigration-numbers-20150310-story.html#page=1
Joe Biden calls on Congress to approve $1 billion for Central America
“Vice President Joseph R. Biden called on Congress Tuesday to approve the administration’s request for $1 billion for Central America to help discourage illegal immigrants who surged into the U.S. in 2014. In an op-ed in The Hill, Mr. Biden said the aid to Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala will “put the region on a more stable and sustainable path.” “This level of support is nearly three times what we have provided to Central America in the recent past,” Mr. Biden said. “But the cost of investing now in a Central America where young people can thrive in their own communities pales in comparison to the costs of another generation of violence, poverty, desperation and emigration.” Last year, tens of thousands of illegal immigrants from the region crossed into the U.S., many of them unaccompanied children. Administration officials said they were driven by chronic poverty and crime, and that the solution is to improve economic opportunity and security in those countries. Mr. Biden held meetings with Central American officials in Guatemala earlier this month and praised the leaders for their commitment to a plan called the Alliance for Prosperity. With aid from the Inter-American Development Bank, Mr. Biden said, the plan will “create the conditions we know prevent migration, measures to reduce poverty, steps to attract foreign investment and the continuation of our successful efforts to target smuggling networks.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/10/joe-biden-calls-congress-approve-1-billion-central/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
US Attorneys DECLINED Prosecution Against Illegal Aliens Who Used Social Security Numbers Of Dead People
“U.S. Attorneys declined to prosecute illegal aliens accused of using the social security numbers of dead people in order to work. That finding is contained in a footnote in a recent audit released by the Social Security Administration’s office of the inspector general. “In three cases, [the Social Security Administration’s Office of Investigators] confirmed that illegal aliens were using deceased numberholders’ names and SSNs to work,” the footnote reads. “But U.S. Attorneys in Arizona, Florida, and South Carolina declined prosecution.” The fraudulent use of a social security number is a federal felony. The same is true for illegal aliens applying for work in the U.S. Overall, the audit found over 6.5 million social security numbers for people over the age of 112 with no death records listed in a database called the Numident. Administration files were clearly not being updated properly, the inspector general determined, as it is believed that only a few hundred people 112 years or older are still alive in the U.S. Some of the numbers were fraudulently used to open bank accounts, the audit found. Others were used by illegal immigrants seeking work. Between 2008 and 2011, “employers made 4,024 E-Verify inquiries using 3,873 SSNs belonging to numberholders born before June 16, 1901,” the inspector general reported. E-Verify is the system the Department of Homeland Security uses to ensure that immigrants are allowed to work legally in the U.S. “These inquiries indicate individuals’ attempts to use the SSNs to apply for work,” the report reads. The audit found that 34 deceased individuals’ numbers were being misused by individuals for work purposes. And of those cases of fraudulent use mentioned in the audit, U.S. Attorneys, for some unknown reason, declined to press charges. The report cited cases in South Carolina and Arizona. One numberholder born in 1896 filed a “life claim” in 1958, at the age of 62. There were no earnings records for that numberholder from 1963 through 2006. But in 2007 and following years, an employer in South Carolina reporting paying wages ranging from $11,450 to $27,694 to someone using that number. The case in Arizona was similar. A numberholder born in 1886 filed a “life claim” in 1953. No earnings were reported on that number from between 1956 and 2007. But between 2008 and 2012, an Arizona employer reported paying between $12,594 and $17,100 to whomever was using the number…”
http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/10/us-attorneys-declined-prosecution-against-illegal-aliens-who-used-social-security-numbers-of-dead-people/
Senate chairman presses on immigrant Social Security numbers
“Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) wants the Obama administration to spill more information about how many immigrants protected from deportation will receive Social Security numbers. In a Monday letter, Hatch charged that the Social Security Administration’s own projections suggest it’s not expecting to hand out an influx of new Social Security cards — despite the fact that Obama’s executive actions paved the way for immigrants to also potentially receive work permits and Social Security numbers. Hatch also accused Carolyn Colvin, the acting commissioner of the Social Security agency, of keeping Congress out of the loop on its work, saying it was “disappointing to have the SSA [Social Security Administration] formulating plans and procedures in secret and outside of the light of congressional oversight.” Hatch had previously asked Colvin similar questions a month ago but said in Monday’s letter he had yet to receive a response. The Utah Republican’s letter comes just days after congressional Republicans backed down in their fight over Obama’s actions on immigration by fully funding the Homeland Security Department for the rest of the fiscal year. But senior Republicans on Capitol Hill have kept a close eye on the administration’s push to potentially give Social Security cards to immigrants protected from deportation. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), for instance, is expected to soon roll out a bill that would block those immigrants from receiving the Earned Income Tax Credit, which is aimed at helping working families. In his letter, Hatch asked about projections in President Obama’s budget that suggested there would be little change in the number of Social Security numbers handed out between 2014 and 2016. The president’s budget says that the Social Security Administration expects to handle requests for roughly 16 million new or replacement Social Security cards in fiscal 2016. The Obama administration also has said that it gave out, or expected to give out, 16 million Social Security cards in 2014 and 2015 as well. But Hatch is asking how that can be the case, given that the administration’s actions on immigration are likely to “significantly increase the number of SSNs that SSA will process, grant and complete.” Hatch was a central figure last year in the GOP’s successful efforts to block Colvin from being confirmed as Social Security commissioner, insisting that Colvin was in charge of the agency at a time when there was “evidence of criminal conduct there.”
<a href="http://thehill.com/policy/finance/235173-senate-chairman