On March 15, 2011, a subcommittee of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing on the topic of the waivers issued by HHS to more than 1,000 unions and companies, exempting their insurance plans from the annual coverage limits under ObamaCare.  AHEC has previously detailed the problems with the waivers including, most recently, how ObamaCare does not grant Secretary Sebelius waiver authority.  Instead, HHS is using waiver authority because HHS gave HHS waiver authority in the regulations it issued, Congress never did. 

At the hearing, Edmund Haislmaier of The Heritage Foundation, provided testimony that confirmed what AHEC has said about how HHS is improperly using waivers despite no statutory authority to issue waivers.  Haislmaier stated: "The first problem is that it appears HHS has exceeded its statutory authority in creating this waiver process. The statute does not explicitly grant HHS authority to waive the application of this provision."

He continued about the problems associated with HHS waiver approach, saying:

As Congress struggles with how to rein in the federal budget, AHEC has a suggestion for them - start by cutting all of the advanced appropriations contained in ObamaCare.  As AHEC has previously pointed out, ObamaCare includes more than $100 billion of funding that will be spent this year and over the next several years to fund the implementation of ObamaCare; construct federal healthcare bureaucracies; and to bribe the states to induce them to aide in the implementation of the federal government's takeover of healthcare.

AHEC has previously tweeted that Congress should defund this aspect of ObamaCare and has also advocated for cutting this spending as part of the CR.  Congress should use the LIFO - last in, first out - principal for budget cutting.  If the nation has been able to do without certain programs and projects since 1776, we should begin by cutting those programs most recently created by Congress to bring down the deficit.  Newer programs, which we presumably have less need for (like ObamaCare), would be cut first.  We could cut a lot under this method without having to cut programs like Social Security (which was created in 1935). 

Earlier today, The Heritage Foundation has produced an analysis advocating that Congress cut the ObamaCare appropriations as well.  

Today, AHEC released its March Newsletter which is focused on how ObamaCare places the cost burden of "reform" on the backs of hard-working, young adults between the ages of 20 and 34.  The newsletter details what impact various policies contained in ObamaCare will have on young adults, including:

   (1) The individual mandate - how it forces young adults to subsidize other people's health insurance,
   (2) Treating 19 to 25 year olds as a dependent "child" of their parents - and its subsidizing impact,  
   (3) Changes to HSAs - how ObamaCare makes consumer-centered policies less attractive,
   (4) ObamaCare's new tax burden - a burden that will be born by young workers and young families, and 
   (5) Exchange subsidies - how these will create perversive incentives and wage disparity. 

Each of these provisions will have a negative affect on many young adults.  You can find the newsletter here.


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

As America nears the one-year anniversary of ObamaCare becoming law, AHEC has released a new document entitled: "A Policymaker's Primer on ObamaCare: The Myths, the Costs and a Practical Guide to Defunding the Government Takeover of Healthcare in the 112th Congress."

The following is the Primer's Abstract:

On March 23, 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which is commonly referred to as ObamaCare. This law includes a series of provisions that will have a dramatic impact on America’s healthcare system, including: (1) increased taxes and compliance burdens imposed on small businesses; (2) changes to HSAs that make them less useful to individual consumers and increased fines for non-qualified distributions; (3) deep cuts to Medicare Advantage, the free-market portion of Medicare; (4) a significant expansion of Medicaid, which will threaten state budgets; and (5) an unprecedented use of the Constitution’s commerce clause to justify the imposition of an individual mandate requiring individuals to carry health insurance or face serious tax penalties. Supporters of the law have made a series of promises about this law, including that it will reduce costs and expand access to insurance. Opponents of the law, however, note that these promises have proven false, and that the law will actually increase insurance costs, increase federal budget deficits, and damage the U.S. economy. In response to the clearly negative impact the law will have on businesses, individual consumers, and America as a whole, this primer concludes that it is necessary to repeal ObamaCare and recommends a course of action for state and local policymakers to achieve that objective.

The document is available on AHEC's website here and can also be found in the Policy & Analysis area of AHEC's website.

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

Yesterday, the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) announced the proposal of new regulations that will be imposed on insurance companies.  As AHEC has previously detailed, these regulations will be costly and add an additional, and duplicative, layer of bureaucracy on the health insurance industry related to the review of insurance premium increases.  

Section 2794 of ObamaCare requires the Secretary of HHS to work "in conjunction with States" to establish a review process. In one of the documents released by HHS yesterday, the department said that: "HHS has interpreted the 'in conjunction with the States' section to mean that HHS will make a determination regarding which States operate 'an effective rate review program.'"

Despite the clear statutory language suggesting a federal-state partnership in the area of rate reviews, HHS has engaged in a naked power grab to force a one size fits all rate review process on the states.  Further evidence of this power grab can be found in subsequent statements by HHS, including that HHS will adopt a state's finding "only if the State has an effective review process" approved by HHS.  Where that is not the case, "HHS will conduct [its own] reviews of rates." 

What HHS is saying is this: "if the states do it the federal way, we will accept it, but if the states don't do it the federal way the states will accept the federal way."  That doesn't sound like an equal partnership between the feds and the states - it sounds more like the Secretary is the boss of the states.

This move by HHS is further evidence that the states should not apply for, or accept, any ObamaCare grant money. Section 2794 included a grant program for the states to further information sharing with HHS.  Now that the federal camel's nose is under the tent, the Secretary is engaging in a bait and switch to force states to accept federal preeminence over traditional state regulatory authority, furthering the federal government's takeover of healthcare.    


Documentation from HHS can be Found Here:
1. Instructions.pdf
2. Worksheet Part I.pdf
3. Worksheet Part II.pdf
4. Rate Summary Form.pdf
5. Statement Part A.PDF
6. Consumer Disclosure Template.pdf

According to a press release issued by the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) today, the Obama Administration has already dolled out "$2.8 billion in funding to states....   a fraction of the total funding available under the law...." Given that ObamaCare includes about $105 billion in advanced appropriations that fraction is close to 3% of the total funding.

As AHEC has repeatedly pointed out, ObamaCare grants come with significant strings attached.  By taking the money, states lose the ability to argue ObamaCare is coercive and the states must also comply with the requirements of the grant - which could include forfeiting state authority to HHS in the area of insurance oversight, premium review, and market practices including whether to set up exchanges. 

The Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) announced new regulations that could have a devastating affect on the insurance plans relied on by millions of college students.  According to The Wall Street Journal, "college health-insurance plans must comply with the central provisions of the health-care overhaul, ending any speculation that the nation's colleges and universities would be permanently exempted from the new law."

These plans, known as "mini-med plans," have annual caps on coverage limits (usually around $30,000) in order to keep the premium costs low.  These plans offer an affordable option for many college students who are generally much healthier than the population as a whole.

Some people have criticized mini-med plans for not offering enough coverage but the critics overlook the fact that these plans fill a market niche for many consumers.  The end results of the new regulations is that the federal government is imposing a one-size-fits-all, Washington-knows-best policy that will reduce consumer choices.  College students are very likely to see higher premiums as a consequence of this regulation. 

One critical component contributing to the statistical "decline" in the number of unemployed is that Americans who simply stopped looking for work are no longer counted as part of the country's unemployed. Seasonal fluctuations, i.e. fewer construction workers looking for jobs in the winter months, are normal and expected, yet nevertheless inflate the seemingly positive data. 

Another facet to consider is the difference between payroll surveys and household surveys. While both are used to calculate national unemployment, the two often show quite different data. In the January report, for instance, the payroll survey showed a scant increase of 36,000 new jobs while the household survey found 117,000 more people reporting now being employed. Together, those figures work to reduce the unemployment rate.

But more than just empirically deceptive, the 9% rate also masks the widespread uncertainty and lack of confidence business owners feel specifically because of ObamaCare regulations. According to testimony from small business owners delivered at a Ways and Means Committee hearing in January, the Democrats' health care law is posing serious challenges to those wishing to grow their businesses:

The owner of a chain of restaurants talked about the obstacles he faces:

The recent flood of regulations and looming uncertainty about what Washington D.C. will do next is only compounding these challenges … Additionally, we will be forced to cease new restaurant development and may forfeit the development agreement we invested in.

Supplementing this testimony was the head of a printing company who told the Committee about the uncertainty and confusion he felt because of ObamaCare's regulations, hiring guidelines, tax ramifications, and the potentially steep fines he would face for expanding his workforce over 50 employees.

 

Event the CBO admitted in its recently released ten-year budget outlook for 2011-2021 that the health care law's uncertainty will restrain hiring:

The creation of new jobs may be further hindered by businesses’ continued lack of confidence in the recovery’s sustainability and by remaining limitations on access to credit. Businesses may also be unsure and concerned about how they will be affected by the implementation of recently enacted financial and health care legislation and by possible future changes in tax and other federal policies. 

When money is already tight and the legislation's implications are not entirely known, business owners rationally respond by holding off investment in their companies. This restraint has drastic real-world implications for both the economy and job seekers, namely a country in which ~9% unemployment (even if misleadingly calculated) is the new norm.

Last week Abbott Laboratories announced it will be cutting 1,900 jobs, the equivalent of 2% of its staff. An estimated 1,000 of these lost jobs will be from the Illinois branch of the company. The downsizing comes after the Chicago-based pharmaceutical firm already slashed nearly 3,000 workers from its rolls in September. A statement from a company spokesman revealed Abbott already lost $200 million last year because of ObamaCare and that this most recent round of job cuts is “in response to changes in the health- care industry, including U.S. health-care reform and the challenging regulatory environment”.

According to Abbott's CFO Thomas Freyman, the company is bracing to pay another $200 million this year in drugmaker-taxes and other discounts for Medicare patients demanded by the new health care law. In an attempt to recoup some of these losses, Abbott will transfer $295 million of its product manufacturing, $165 million this year, to other locations, inevitably leading to even more job losses for Abbott's employees in Illinois.

Tom Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, spoke about his organization's opposition to ObamaCare last Tuesday. In the Politico he is quoted as saying the Chamber strongly advocates for health care reform, but that it's time "to go back to the drawing board" as it relates to the new health care legislation. The debate this week in the House over H.R. 2 he saw as "an opportunity for everyone to take a fresh look at health care reform and to replace unworkable approaches with more efficient and effective measures that will lower costs, expand access and improve quality.

In addition to the litany of regulatory concerns associated with the controversial legislation, the U.S. Chamber is particularly worried by the 200 waivers already granted exempting people from the legislation; the employer mandate; the requirement that insurers spend certain amounts on health care; and changes to health savings accounts and 1099 form filing minimums.