What Exactly Is in the Obamacare “Stability” Deal?

Memo to Rand Paul: It’s time to fire up the copier again.

On Tuesday, the simmering controversy over Obamacare “stability” legislation came to the boil, as conservatives increasingly voiced objections at bailing out Obamacare and giving tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to fund abortion coverage in the process. But the controversy centers around a “deal” of which the precise contents remain a closely guarded secret.

But at least Democrats (eventually) made the text of the Cornhusker Kickback, Louisiana Purchase, Gator Aid, and other provisions public. For the Obamacare “stability” bill, Senate Republican leaders have yet to indicate exactly what legislation they wish to pass.

Substance and Process Unclear

As I noted last week, while Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) recently claimed in an op-ed that the “stability” legislation would appropriate $10 billion in reinsurance funds for insurers, the public version of legislation to which he referred—a bill introduced by Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Bill Nelson (D-FL)—appropriated “only” $4.5 billion in funds to health insurers. Collins and Alexander are apparently engaging in a bidding war with themselves about how many billions worth of taxpayer dollars they wish to spend on corporate welfare payments to insurance companies.

On the policy substance, Senate leadership has refused to disclose exactly what provisions comprise the “deal” Collins supposedly cut with Senate leadership. Did they promise $4.5 billion in reinsurance funding, $10 billion, or more than $10 billion? What other promises did they make in exchange for Collins’ support for repealing the individual mandate in the tax bill?

Did Republican leaders pledge merely to support an open process and a vote on the “stability” measure—as Senate Republican Conference Chairman John Thune (R-SD) implied on Tuesday—or its enactment into law? How exactly could they promise the latter, when any such bill would require 60 votes to break a potential Senate filibuster—a number that Senate Republican leaders do not have, even if they could persuade their entire conference to support bailing out Obamacare?

Then and Now

As noted above, we’ve seen this play before, when Democrats rammed through Obamacare through a series of backroom deals cobbled together behind closed doors, notwithstanding then-candidate Obama’s pledge to televise all health-care negotiations on C-SPAN. Here’s what McConnell had to say about that lack of transparency in a December 2009 floor speech:

Americans are right to be stunned because this bill is a mess. And so was the process that was used to get it over the finish line.

Americans are outraged by the last-minute, closed-door, sweetheart deals that were made to gain the slimmest margin for passage of a bill that is all about their health care. Once the Sun came up, Americans could see all the deals that were tucked inside this grab bag, and they do not like what they are finding. After all, common sense dictates that anytime Congress rushes, Congress stumbles. It is whether Senator so-and-so got a sweet enough deal to sign off on it. Well, Senator so-and-so might have gotten his deal, but the American people have not signed off.

Public opinion is clear. What have we become as a body if we are not even listening to the people we serve? What have we become if we are more concerned about a political victory or some hollow call to history than we are about actually solving the problems the American people sent us here to address?

Some may argue that passing “stability” legislation bears little comparison to home-state earmarks like the Cornhusker Kickback that plagued the Obamacare bill the Senate passed on Christmas Eve 2009. But when Alexander remains adamant about passing “stability” legislation about which senators of both parties now seem ambivalent at best, one must ask whether his insistence stems from the fact that it would provide a significant financial windfall to his biggest campaign contributor—making it a “sweet enough deal” for him too.

The fact that no Senate leaders will dare explain publicly what they have promised privately should tell the public everything they need to know about the merits of this secretive backroom deal. As McConnell might say, it’s “kind of [a] smelly proposition.”

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Paul Ryan and “Regular Order”

Last week, Politico published an article talking about how the Republican House of Representatives under Paul Ryan’s speakership set a new record for the number of bills approved under closed rules—which prohibit members of Congress from offering amendments. Although the Politico story didn’t use the term, it echoes the complaints of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) surrounding Obamacare “repeal-and-replace” legislation this past summer: “I want the regular order.”

McCain’s comment invites a question: What exactly constitutes “the regular order” in Congress? Why do people keep calling for it? And if so many people keep calling for it, why doesn’t Congress just restore “the regular order” already?

‘Deem-and-Pass’

Politico quoted House Rules Committee Ranking Member Louise Slaughter (D-NY): “Under Speaker Ryan’s leadership, this session of Congress has now become the most closed Congress in history.” To call Slaughter’s complaints about a closed process ironic would put it mildly.

Seven years ago, when she chaired the Rules Committee, Slaughter proposed having the Democratic House enact Obamacare into law without voting on it. The House could merely “deem” Obamacare approved as a result of passing some other measure.

While the House has repeatedly used this “deem-and-pass” strategy under both Republican and Democratic majorities, the optics of passing such a massive and prominent piece of legislation using such dodgy procedural shortcuts led Democrats to abandon the gambit, but not before conservative bloggers noted that Slaughter, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), and others attacked the “deem-and-pass” maneuver when Republicans controlled the House in the 2000s.

Republican Manipulation

In proposing the “deem-and-pass” strategy, Slaughter looked to protect House Democrats from taking a tough vote on the unpopular health-care bill Senate Democrats approved on Christmas Eve 2009—the one with the “Cornhusker Kickback,” “Gator Aid,” “Louisiana Purchase,” and the other backroom deals that made the legislation toxic in the minds of many. When in the majority themselves, Republicans have used the same tactics, using procedural blocks to avoid politically difficult votes.

In 2015, the appropriations process ground to a halt in mid-summer, when Democrats offered an amendment preventing federal funds from being used to display the Confederate flag in national cemeteries. The amendment, offered by Rep. Jared Huffman (D-CA), originally passed by voice vote, but some Republicans pledged to vote against the bill if the amendment remained in it.

Republican leaders didn’t have the votes to strip out the amendment, and didn’t have the votes to pass the bill with the amendment in, so the Interior appropriations bill got shelved—as did the entire appropriations process, because Republicans feared Democrats would offer Confederate flag-related amendments to any spending bill that came to the House floor.

House Freedom Caucus

Yet on several occasions over the past few years—including the Confederate flag flap—conservatives and HFC members have looked to leadership to squelch debate on amendments. Earlier this year, moderate Republicans and Democrats combined to defeat an amendment that would have prohibited federal funding of soldiers’ gender-reassignment surgery. Conservatives responded a few weeks later by demanding that leadership insert such a funding prohibition into the defense spending bill—without a direct vote, via the “deem-and-pass” strategy—even though the provision would have violated the will of the House as expressed in a vote weeks before.

While the executive ultimately decided the transgender issue—at conservatives’ behest, President Trump issued an executive order prohibiting transgender troops from serving, making the House procedural dispute moot—it illustrates the problems inherent with a move to “regular order.” As with Slaughter and Democrats, conservatives support an open process in the House only up until the point when it detracts from their desired policy outcomes, at which point the legislative process quickly devolves into a game of ends justifying means.

If it wanted to, HFC could easily demand a more open floor process out of Ryan. It could vote down the rules governing floor debate on individual bills unless and until the Republican leadership allowed an open process and more amendment votes, at which point the Republican leadership would have no choice but to acquiesce to pass legislation through the House. However, a more open process would require conservatives to accept policy outcomes they might not like—federal funds being spent on gender-reassignment surgeries, for instance.

These strictures require leadership to use all manner of procedural shortcuts and chicanery to cobble together legislation that can command a majority of votes. It’s no way to run a railroad. But until members’ desires for “the regular order” are strong enough that they will vote down bills on process grounds alone, it will remain the way Washington works—or, in many cases, doesn’t.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Donald Berwick’s Rationed Transparency

Dr. Donald Berwick is back in the public eye. The former administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has announced he will run for governor in Massachusetts.

Berwick first entered the public spotlight in April 2010, when President Obama nominated him for the CMS post. But Berwick never went through the regular confirmation process. Instead, the president granted him a surprise recess appointment that July.

The president renominated him in January 2011, but it became apparent that he could not garner enough votes for Senate confirmation. That December, Berwick resigned. Now, he is pursuing office as an elected, rather than an appointed, official.

Berwick’s short tenure at CMS was defined by a series of controversial statements he made before his appointment. He defended both Britain’s National Health Service and government rationing of health care. Most famously, in a June 2009 interview, he stated that “the decision is not whether or not we will ration care — the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”

After leaving CMS, Berwick said his comments were merely an attempt to argue for greater transparency in decision-making. “Someone, like your health-insurance company, is going to limit what you can get. That’s the way it’s set up,” he told the New York Times. “The government, unlike many private health-insurance plans, is working in the daylight,” he insisted. “That’s a strength.”

Unfortunately, Berwick himself, while head of CMS, went to great lengths to avoid transparency. He ducked reporters, in one instance even “exit[ing] behind a stage” to avoid press queries. Another time he went so far as to request a “security escort” to avoid questions.

Today, Berwick concedes his lack of transparency. According to a Politico report, he now “regrets listening to White House orders to avoid reaching out to congressional Republicans.”

The lack of transparency is endemic in the Obama administration. Case in point: the enactment of Obamacare. During his 2008 campaign, Barack Obama promised health-care negotiations televised on C-SPAN. Instead, we got a series of notorious backroom deals: the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, the Gator Aid.

“It’s an ugly process, and it looks like there are a bunch of backroom deals,” Obama feebly admitted in January 2010 — only to retreat again to the smoke-filled rooms two months later, where he cut the final deals to ram the legislation through Congress.

Obamacare is premised on the belief that government knows best. And those who share that belief all too often regard transparency and public accountability as inconveniences.

Consider the administration’s approach to regulating the proposed health-insurance “exchanges.” Obamacare requires state-based exchanges to “hold public meetings and input sessions,” but it fails to apply these same transparency standards to the federally run exchanges Washington will create in 33 states. The result: Many key questions remain unanswered.

Thus a law written in secret is being implemented in secret, with a maximum of opacity and a minimum of accountability from the administration.

This post was originally published at National Review.

Big Hospitals’ Obamacare Deal Betrays Seniors and the Poor

A backroom deal made during the writing of Obamacare will harm seniors and the poor, according to The Wall Street Journal (WSJ).

During their closed-room dealings with the Obama Administration, the hospital industry’s lobbyists agreed to support Obamacare—provided that the law placed restrictions on physician-owned “specialty” hospitals, noted WSJ. These innovative specialty hospitals frequently have quality outcomes better than most traditional facilities, but no matter—the big hospital lobbyists wanted to eliminate a source of competition. So Obamacare prohibits new physician-owned hospitals from receiving Medicare payments — and prohibits most existing facilities from expanding if they wish to keep treating Medicare patients.

WSJ highlighted the actions specialty hospitals have been forced to take in response to these Obamacare restrictions:

Forest Park Medical Center in Dallas has stopped accepting Medicare patients, allowing it to escape the law’s restrictions entirely…. Rejecting Medicare ‘was a big leap, but we felt like the law gave us no choice,’ said J. Robert Wyatt, a Forest Park founder….

Other doctor-owned facilities are asking the federal government to let them duck the law’s restrictions altogether. Doctors Hospital at Renaissance near McAllen, Texas, is trying to get a waiver allowing it to expand as more than 53% of its payments come through the Medicaid federal-state insurance program for the poor.

In other words, because hospital lobbyists cut a backroom deal to support Obamacare, seniors and low-income patients have fewer health care options. Think that these examples of Americans losing access to care would prompt the hospital-industrial complex to reconsider its backroom deal? Not a chance:

Any effort to undo the expansion limits faces an uphill battle with Democrats, because the restrictions were a deal-breaker for hospitals when the White House sought their support for the law in 2009, industry lobbyists say.

Obamacare’s backroom deals (the “Louisiana Purchase,” the “Gator Aid,” and the “Cornhusker Kickback”) represented the worst in politics—well-heeled lobbyists seeking to obtain government largesse through pork-barrel spending and regulatory loopholes. The Wall Street Journal story reminds us how those backroom deals have real-world consequences when it comes to medical access—another example of how Obamacare has harmed patient care.

This post was originally published at The Daily Signal.