Faithful Execution of Obamacare

 image credit: True Democracy Party

Andrew McCarthy is no fan of President Trump, but his clear analysis of Trump’s dismantling of Obamacare is in stark contrast with all the media hysteria:

The law is unraveling on its own terms.

. . . What Trump has actually done is end the illegal payoffs without which insurance companies have no rational choice but to jack up premiums or flee the Obamacare exchanges. The culprits here are the charlatans who gave us Obamacare. To portray Trump as the bad guy is not merely fake news. It’s an out-and-out lie.

Which is to say: It’s about as honest as the Democrats’ labeling of Obamacare as the Affordable Care Act.

The subsidy payments to insurance companies may be “critical” to sustaining the ACA, but they are not provided for in the ACA. The Obamacare law did not appropriate them. No legislation appropriates them. They are and have always been illegal. In essence, we are back to the question we asked a couple of weeks ago in connection with Trump’s then-anticipated decertification of Obama’s Iran Nuclear Deal: It is not whether the president should take this action; it is why he failed to take it before now. 

Under the Constitution, no funds may be paid out of the treasury unless they have been appropriated by Congress. It is not enough for lawmakers to authorize a government program or action. The House and Senate must follow through with a statute that directs payment for the program or action. Standing alone, authorization is just aspiration; it does not imply appropriation. Congress authorizes a lot of things, but only the things for which Congress approves the disbursal of public money are permitted to happen.

. . .

Read the rest here. 

# # #

Good news on Health Care

 photo credit: Legal Insurrection

Despite the GOP winning majorities in both the House and Senate, and then winning the White House, the pathetic GOPe in Congress have utterly failed to deliver on its promise to repeal the misnamed “Affordable Care Act.” The bill to repeal should have been on the President’s desk on Day 1, but the GOP, it would seem, never dreamed they’d have to make good on the promise.

Now President Trump has signed a few Executive Orders to begin to dismantle the monstrosity known as Obamacare, and Betsy McCaughey reports on what that means:

Trump strikes a blow 

for health care freedom

Free at last! That’s the message for millions who don’t get health coverage at work and, until now, faced two dismal options: going without insurance or paying Obama­Care’s soaring premiums. On Thursday, President Trump announced changes that will allow consumers to choose coverage options costing half of what ObamaCare’s cheapest bronze plans cost.

Democrats are already accusing the president of kneecapping ObamaCare, but these changes will reduce the number of uninsured — something Democrats claim is their goal.

The Affordable Care Act requires everyone to buy the one-size-fits-all package. You have to pay for maternity care, even if you’re too old to give birth. You’re also on the hook for pediatric dental care, even if you’re childless. It’s like passing a law that the only car you can buy is a fully-loaded, four-door sedan. No more hatchbacks or two-seaters.

Trump’s taking the opposite approach, allowing consumers choice. His new regulation will free people to again buy “short-term” health plans that exclude many costly services, such as inpatient drug rehab. These plans aren’t guaranteed to be renewable year to year; the upside is they cost much less.

. . .

. . . Trump has now seized the initiative, after congressional Republicans fell flat on their faces and failed to address the pain ObamaCare is inflicting on consumers stuck in the individual insurance market.

The president should keep going. What’s next? Trump should use his discretion to stop enforcing the tax penalty on those who don’t buy ObamaCare-compliant plans, including buyers of short-term plans.

Then he should cancel the sweetheart deal his predecessor weaseled for members of Congress and their staff members. Even though the Affordable Care Act requires them to buy coverage on ObamaCare exchanges, Obama arranged for them to have a choice of 57 gold plans and have John Q. Public pick up most of their costs. It’s an outrage.

Once members of Congress are feeling the same pain as everyone else, they’ll be more focused on repealing and replacing the dysfunctional health law. In the meantime, Trump is wisely providing relief where it counts the most — in people’s wallets.

Read the rest here.

# # #

Federal appeals court panel deals major blow to the ACA (Obamacare): UPDATED

Art credit: insureblog.blogspot.com

UPDATED: From The Hill:

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that ObamaCare subsidies issued through the federal exchanges are legal, contradicting a separate ruling by the D.C. Circuit Court on the same day.

Fourth Circuit Judge Roger Gregory argued that because the statutory language of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is ambiguous, courts should defer to the interpretation of the Internal Revenue Service and allow the subsides to stand. 

"Applying deference to the IRS's determination … we uphold the rule as a permissible exercise of the agency's discretion," Gregory wrote.

The decision came just hours after the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals came to the opposite conclusion in its ruling. . . .

From Cleveland.com:

Taxpayer subsidies of the Affordable Care Act in many states, including Ohio, could be in jeopardy because of a federal appeals court decision this morning.

The case, Halbig v. Sebelius, did not specifically involve Ohio, although the legal scholarship of a particular Ohioan, Case Western Reserve University law professor Jonathan Adler, provided the basis for the argument against providing the subsidies.

In a nutshell, the U.S Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that when Congress wrote the Affordable Care Act, or ACA, it specifically said that federal taxpayer subsidies should help offset the costs for people buying health coverage in new, state-based marketplaces.

But a number of states, including Ohio, declined to set up their own marketplaces, or “exchanges,” in the ACA’s parlance. Instead, they piggybacked on the federal exchange, although each state offered policies specific to insurers and medical providers in the state.

The problem with this, as Adler first found while doing academic research, is that Congress specifically called for subsidies in state exchanges. While the federal exchange offered a fallback in states that would not set up their own, state-specific exchanges – many in states with Republican governors – that did not automatically transfer the right to give subsidies in federal-exchange states. Adler wrote this first in a scholarly paper after reviewing the law, and his analysis soon made the rounds in conservative and libertarian circles and became championed as a legal theory for challenging the ACA.

More than 80 percent of policy buyers on ACA exchanges have relied on subsidies. Three dozen states are using the federal exchange. So in those states, a court agreeing with Adler and other conservative legal authorities could shoot a substantial hole in the underpinnings of the ACA – namely, insurance coverage made affordable through federal subsidies.

In a 2-1 ruling today in Washington, D.C., a federal appeals court did just that. The court ruled that language in the ACA “unambiguously restricts” the taxpayer subsidies to exchanges “established by the state.”

President Barack Obama’s administration argued that Congress intended for subsidies to be offered in every state, and that the ACA established complete equivalence.

But the appeals court said that the wording in the ACA “plainly distinguishes exchanges established by states from those established by the federal government.”

The ruling was 2-1, and parties in the case may ask the full court for an opinion. Some analysts believe the full court may be more friendly to the Obama administration. If not, the Obama administration could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, although that would come with risk.

----------------------

More from The Washington Post is here.

And Jonathan Adler's report in the WaPo is here. 

# # #