The Pacific Research Institute (PRI) has published a new paper explaining how over-regulation in the health insurance industry leads to fewer consumer choices. Fewer choices means there is less competition and with less competition consumers will pay more for insurance. ObamaCare takes America down this path. By creating a regulatory barrier to entry, as ObamaCare does, consumers end up getting hurt over the long run.

IF you get the chance, take the time to read PRI's paper - it is informative. 

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

A friend of AHEC, former Congressman Bob Beauprez writes on his blog, A Line of Sight, about a new poll that shows doctors are no fan of ObamaCare.  From A Line of Sight: 

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Colorado Christian University is suing the federal government over a federal government mandate that requires businesses that provide insurance coverage for employees to also buy coverage that includes abortifacients. The suit is in response to a federal government mandate issued by HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius last summer that requires insurers to cover "preventative services" without any copays. The morning after pill and ella are among those "services." 

The college is contending this violates their rights to free speech and freedom of religion. The lawsuit contends that: "The government’s mandate unconstitutionally coerces Colorado Christian to violate its deeply-held religious beliefs under threat of heavy fines and penalties."

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Paul Conner writes for the Daily Caller about ObamaCare's really bad year. The 35 named instances that showed ObamaCare in a bad light include: legal challenges and rulings that the individual mandate was unconstitutional; House and Senate votes to repeal the law (the majority lost in the Senate); repeal of the onerous 1099 reporting requirement (ultimately good for small business but repeal means ObamaCare will add more to the deficit); CBO determines the law will cost $90 billion more than originally estimated; the waiver scandal reveals that HHS Secretary does not have legal authority to issue the waivers that are politically motivated (she "gave" herself the authority by regulation); studies show employers will drop employee healthcare as a result of ObamaCare; HHS abandons the CLASS Act due to its unworkability (this reduces the revenue needed to "pay for" ObamaCare in the early years meaning ObamaCare will dramatically add to the deficit); the IRS reveals it cannot collect many of the taxes required to "pay for" (ObamaCare's deficit hole grows even bigger); even stalwart liberals decide to back repeal of IPAB - one of the central cost-containing measures of ObamaCare (the law gets more expensive).

The list of ObamaCare's failures is stunning when read in their totality - kudos to Paul Conner for an article well done.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

A new article explains that the strategy of states to oppose ObamaCare by opposing establishing a health insurance exchange is a winning strategy. ObamaCare seeks to have states establish "exchanges" whereby the ObamaCare's entitlement subsidies would be doled out. States are being asked to set up the exchanges (and fund them with only minimal federal assistance dollars) even before the feds tell the states all the rules that will come with the federal money. The feds strategy is one that is designed to get the states to jump before they even know how the proverbial cliff is.

Many states - Alaska, Florida and Louisiana have flat out refused to create an exchange. The Michigan House recently killed funding for the creation of an exchange. What is the fallback? Under ObamaCare, if a state fails to set up an exchange, the feds can set one up in the state.  But that is proving to be no small feat. Many states that are working to set up exchanges don't have the right technology infrastructure, the feds have yet to define the essential benefits package that states must offer and it is completely unclear about whether states or the feds will have the ultimate control over the exchanges (given how the feds have engaged in power grab after power grab with respect to health care over the past 50 years, my guess is the feds will use the ObamaCare funding to grab away state power).

Opponents of ObamaCare see a winning strategy in opposing the establishment of the exchanges in the states - a strategy they believe can ultimately prove to be ObamaCare's undoing. Other less thoughtful people on the issue of healthcare see no problem with setting up the exchanges. For example, Leo Linbeck III who is pushing the health care compact (he says to rid states of the federal monopoly over healthcare) has said: "And there are some good ideas embedded in the bill. The idea of health insurance exchanges... is not all bad. It’s essentially an attempt at a market solution." Linbeck's naiveté and ignorance over how ObamaCare works and how it is being implemented would be cute if it wasn't so dangerous. To accept the exchanges is to fully embrace ObamaCare, its co-opting of state budgets and state autonomy, and the looming fiscal crisis ObamaCare represents to the states. 

No one who understands how the federal government has operated in the field of healthcare in grabbing control over the states could rightly support the exchanges. This raises the question about why people like Linbeck are pushing the compact. If they know so little about ObamaCare how are they remotely positioned to design an effective strategy to undermine the law (as Linbeck says the HCC is designed to do). This suggests Linbeck has motives other than undermining ObamaCare (which could be why he is involved in a primary accountability effort to unelect the very Republicans who will be necessary to repeal ObamaCare in 2013).

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

The United States Supreme Court has set the dates for hearing oral arguments over the constitutionality of ObamaCare and the individual mandate. According to press reports, the court has announced the following schedule:

• Monday, March 26 - Arguments over whether the case is premature because no one has yet been forced to pay the penalties for failing to comply with the individual mandate.
• Tuesday, March 27 - Arguments over whether the individual mandate is constitutional.
• Wednesday, March 28 - Arguments over whether the individual mandate is severable from the entire law.

The move to hear oral arguments over an entire week (nearly five hours total) is "unprecedented" according to the Associated Press.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Last week, AHEC joined several prominent organizations, such as Docs4PatientCare, Doctor Patient Medical Association, and Eagle Forum, by signing onto a letter in support of H.Res. 475 - a resolution stating the sense of Congress that ObamaCare and the individual mandate are unconstitutional. The resolution was introduced by Rep. David Roe (TN) and 67 cosponsors.

You can read the text of the letter here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

According to The Detroit Free Press, the Michigan legislature voted against funding the creation of an ObamaCare exchange in the state. A spokesman for House Speaker Glen Bolger stated it was "premature to set up any health insurance exchange in Michigan" until the U.S. Supreme Court decides on whether ObamaCare is constitutional. 

The State Legislature should be commended for their action - they clearly understand that the federal government is trying to induce states to set up, fund and implement the exchanges all BEFORE the feds tell the states what the rules will be for how the states must operate the exchange in order for people to get ObamaCare insurance subsidies. Simply put, the feds are hoping states will blindly set up exchanges and then the feds can co-opt the exchanges with a heavy-handed, top-down set of federal rules. States would have no ability to stand up to the feds at that point because, in some states, millions of people would have no access to insurance if the states insisted upon operating the exchange free of federal intrusion.

Foolishly, Michigan's novice Governor, Rick Snyder, has said he supports setting up a state controlled exchange. So too does Michigan's Director of Licensing and Insurance Regulation, Steve Hilfinger. What these naive individuals think is that they can maintain leverage against the feds by implementing ObamaCare now. The best way to maintain the state's leverage is to wait - as the House has wisely chosen to do. 

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC