The U.S. Supreme Court this week is hearing arguments about the constitutionality of Obamacare, with a decision is expected this summer. But, as hard as it may be, let’s put aside for a moment whether the law adheres to the Constitution. No matter what the Supremes decide, Obamacare is very bad law — one shoved down the throat of an unwilling American public by the narrowest of margins via budget reconciliation trickery, the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, and instantly broken promises to congressional dupes.
Nick Gillespie — whom Heartland hosted for a great book event last summer in Chicago with his Reason compatriot and co-author Matt Welch — outlines just how bad this law is. In short: If it survives Supreme review and is not repealed, any attempt to get back to the limited government our Founders intended is over. As Gillespie says:
There’s no question that if the government can force you to do something simply because you exist and draw breath, then the American experiment in limited government is over and done with. Whether it’s the mandating of eating broccoli or buying insurance, a government that can make you do whatever it wants just ain’t in the American grain.
This is a much-watch video below the fold. Short and sweet (1:44):
[click to continue…]
The Heartland Institute has a new digital magazine called the Heartlander. It’s a one-stop-shop to read the news (the MSM counter-spin) on the hottest political and policy stories in America. If you love freedom, if you cherish your liberty, if you want the info you need to argue for smaller government involvement in your life, the Heartlander is something to bookmark and put in your reader feeds.
Just one of the latest stories at the Heartlander explores how Obamacare’s intentions are butting up against a bipartisan brick wall — or at least a rhetorical wall of scorn in Congress. Not what the president had in mind one-year-plus out from his “signature” achievement.
An excerpt:
Congress members of both parties are directing ire against a controversial element of President Obama’s health care law, which proposes to restrain Medicare costs through the creation of the Independent Payment Advisory Board.
[click to continue…]
The recent “discovery” within President Obama’s health care law that up to three million middle-class Americans will qualify for Medicaid in 2014 serves as further embarrassment for his administration’s plan.
However, skepticism has risen over whether this was truly an unexpected “glitch.”
As reported by Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar of the Associated Press, administration officials originally supported the change in the system, claiming it was “not a loophole but the result of a well-meaning effort. Instead of a hodgepodge, there would be one national policy.” Yet, after receiving further scrutiny on the expansion of eligibility requirements, the “well-meaning effort” is now being recognized as an issue that needs to be addressed. [click to continue…]
Slate’s David Weigel, who covers “the right” for the left-leaning magazine has complied his list of the five biggest political gaffes of 2010 that weren’t really gaffes. Weigel’s piece runs in the tradition of the former editor of Slate, Michael Kinsley, who famously (and most accurately) defined a political gaffe as “when a politician tells the truth” by accident.
And, as an aside, this should be said: Weigel enlightens Slate’s readers about the happenings on the right side of the blogosphere without treating it like a strange tribe an explorer stumbled upon in a remote jungle somewhere. Weigel’s blog is well worth a bookmark or subscription on your RSS reader, and Slate’s lucky to have him.
But before we get to Weigel’s gaffes, I want to highlight his lead, which lays out well the forever-changed media landscape that the modern Internet wrought:
The 2010 midterms marked the final handover of political news judgment from the professionals to the amateurs and operatives. Consider: Four years ago, when then-Sen. George Allen of Virginia, then running for re-election, called a Democratic video tracker “Macaca,” you could not see the video on your phone. You couldn’t tweet it. It was largely up to news organizations whether they covered the video, which is why conservatives blamed the Washington Post for blowing it up into a scandal by covering every angle of the incident.
Isn’t that quaint? Now we find out about damaging gaffes and videos because people record them (or clip them from TV) and put them online, then spread the word through social media. Most of the “must-see videos” from the trail this year got that way because conservative or liberal blogs were obsessing over them and the rest of the media had to notice.
[click to continue…]
Paul Krugman recently came out of the closet to say that he supported “death panels.” He then posted the obligatory clarification on his blog.
So, what I said is that the eventual resolution of the deficit problem both will and should rely on “death panels and sales taxes”. What I meant is that
(a) health care costs will have to be controlled, which will surely require having Medicare and Medicaid decide what they’re willing to pay for — not really death panels, of course, but consideration of medical effectiveness and, at some point, how much we’re willing to spend for extreme care
(b) we’ll need more revenue — several percent of GDP — which might most plausibly come from a value-added tax
And if we do those two things, we’re most of the way toward a sustainable budget.
Frankly, Krugman deserves credit for intellectual honesty. When both sides of the aisle are more intellectually honest, at least a real debate can take place.
Regardless, when Heartland sent out one of its e-blasts discussing Krugman’ post, a friend of mine sent out a heart-felt e-mail looking for an ethical solution to some of the problems. This solution proposed a system of informed votes on what the government should and shouldn’t pay for in end-of-life care. His email prompted me to write up a response.
[click to continue…]
11:25 a.m. EST:
And we’re done. Berwick had little challenge with this. An hour of dodging with no major breakdowns and no commitment for return. Major questions remain unanswered regarding his views and conflicts of interest.
[Ed -- Very disappointing to read that last update by Ben Domenech.]
11:23 a.m. EST:
Cantwell runs through talking point list of cost controls. So many softballs here where Berwick can dodge questions.
No one has yet asked Berwick about his past quotes regarding NHS or wealth redistribution. The key issues for why he was recess appointed have not been raised.
11:17 a.m. EST:
Ensign asks about healthy behaviors provision he added within legislation and applying it to Medicare and Medicaid population. Berwick talks wellness visits, but doesn’t mention financial benefits included. Ensign notes the Safeway model, which has had great success. Berwick ducks question.
Ensign demands a commitment for more transparency from Berwick on costs. Berwick doesn’t give it.
11:14 a.m. EST:
Grassley back up. Says Berwick recess appointment “violated promises by candidate Obama” regarding transparency.
Everything Berwick cites costs money: Annual physicals, checks for seniors, drug rebates. Wants to talk candy, not about the price.
11:11 a.m. EST:
Wyden cites Gov Kitzhaber’s push for flexibility in Oregon. Another softball, and one where again Berwick plays along with the idea of diversity. He already decried the possibility of Medicaid waivers – Berwick wants demonstration projects, not statewide tests.
Now comes the announcement that a vote has started on the floor. Baucus asks Berwick to begin giving 15 second answers. Laughable.
Roberts absence [he left to vote] means more Democrat questions. Going from Wyden to Stabenow is a major dropoff in health care knowledge and it shows. Stabenow asks a political flack question.
[click to continue…]
If you want a thorough debunking of the absurdly named “Affordable Health Care Act” Congress jammed down our throat, you should read The Obamacare Disaster by Heartland fellow Peter Ferrara. But Reason’s Veronique de Rugy does a great job debunking former Obama budget director Peter Orzag’s pathetic claim in the Nov. 3 New York Times that “To Save Money, Save [Obamacare].”
Writes de Rugy:
Orszag’s article amounts to little more than wishful thinking. Using Congressional Budget Office (CBO) data, the chart below shows that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 have left the cost curve of federal healthcare spending virtually unchanged over the next 25 years.
And she has the chart to prove it.
[click to continue…]
.
About three months out from the November 2 election, Heartland fellows Ben Domenech and Ben Boychuk interviewed Rand Paul — among the several successful Tea Party candidates who will populate the next Congress.
Paul was queried about Obamacare, education policy, the federal budget, and where libertarians fit in the modern political landscape. You can listen to the podcast on the player above, or download it. (The podcast can also be heard at Health Care News and School Reform News.)
Some highlights:
On Congress: Too many are “not restrained by the rule of law.” Says Paul: “We once lived in a constitutional republic, but that has eroded in the last 80 years.”
On Health Care: Paul says he wants to find out “how we can get more capitalism” involved in health care, instead of more government. All 2,000-plus pages of Obamacare is bad, but just wait until the bureaucrats write thousands more pages of regulations that the law mandates.
Paul also provided an unsolicited plug for Heartland’s Health Care News, saying it was there that he got up to speed on the controversial recess appointment of Donald Berwick to head up the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). “The more I read, the more I was scared about what the president is doing to us,” he said.
[click to continue…]
Podcast: Play in new window
| Download
An even dozen Heartland Institute scholars, fellows and editors provided me with their analysis of the policy landscape after Tuesday’s electoral tsunami. It makes for interesting reading, and I share it below.
In addition to re-electing Barbara Boxer to the Senate and returning Jerry Brown to the governor’s mansion, California voters resoundingly rejected Proposition 23, which would have delayed the state’s unrealistic greenhouse gas emissions law until its unemployment rate returned to a reasonable level. So expect the already-high rate of businesses and jobs leaving the state to escalate.
Elsewhere in the country, in places where environmental extremists ran their largely Democratic candidates against so-called ‘Big Oil’ and ‘Big Coal,’ they suffered resounding defeat. Mostly pro-traditional energy candidates produced huge swings in their favor in states like Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Voters realized that these important industries produce valuable jobs and feed their families, and to demonize them is wrong.
If during its lame-duck session Congress chooses to take up even a portion of their cap-and-trade agenda, such as a national Renewable Electricity Standard, they will severely misread — or worse, ignore —the message sent to them by the electorate.
Paul Chesser
Special Correspondent
I strongly believe that this new Congress will not sit idly by and allow EPA to institute a continuous string of anti-business, anti-human progress regulations which have no benefit to the citizens of the United States. This, of course, includes overbearing and unnecessary air quality regulations And the absurd concept of limiting carbon dioxide in our atmosphere — which is the life breath of the very plant life that makes our planet habitable.
Jay Lehr
Science Director
[click to continue…]
