Democrats’ Taxing Health Care Promises

July’s Democratic presidential debates left seasoned health policy professionals confused, struggling to understand both the candidates’ policies and the differences among them. But working families should find Democrats’ health care debate taxing for another reason. For all their vows that Americans can obtain unlimited “free” health care while only “the rich” will pay, the major candidates are writing out checks that will end up on middle class families’ tab.

In this debate, Bernie Sanders wins credit for candor, in the sense that he has dissembled less than his opponents. Admitting that his single-payer plan will require tax hikes, in April Sanders proposed a 4% income tax, along with a 7.5% payroll tax, among other revenue increases to fund his system.

Unfortunately for Sanders, however, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget believes the tax increases he has proposed to date will pay for only about half of the more than $30 trillion cost of his single-payer scheme. In that, the organization echoes experience from Sanders’ home state of Vermont. In 2014, Gov. Peter Shumlin abandoned efforts to enact a state-based single payer system, because the accompanying tax increases created “a risk of an economic shock.” Shumlin said single payer in Vermont would have required a 9.5% income tax, and an 11.5% payroll tax—far higher levels than Sanders has proposed.

While Sanders admits that the middle class will pay more taxes to fund single payer, both he and Elizabeth Warren argue that families will save overall, because the program would eliminate premiums, deductibles, and other forms of cost-sharing. Unfortunately, studies from across the political spectrum—from the conservative Heartland Institute to former Clinton Administration official Kenneth Thorpe—disagree.

In 2016, Thorpe concluded that 71% of households would pay more under a Sanders plan fully funded by tax increases. Low-income households would get hit even worse, with 85% of families on Medicaid paying more. Since then, Sanders has only increased the generosity of his single-payer proposal, meaning taxes on the middle class could rise even more than Thorpe originally estimated.

Perhaps to elide the tax landmines, Kamala Harris’ plan breaks with Warren and Sanders, delaying the move to a single payer system for a decade. She claims the delay “will lower the overall cost of the program”—but only until the program phases in fully. At that point, her pledge not to raise taxes on families making under $100,000 will prove unsustainable. But if Harris has her way, a 10-year delay until full implementation of single-payer could punt the tax problem to her successor.

As for Joe Biden, he has tried to portray himself as protecting middle class families from the tax hikes he calls inevitable under the other major contenders’ plans. But Biden has two problems.

First, Biden supports restoring Obamacare’s individual mandate penalty, which Republicans eliminated in 2017. The Supreme Court in 2012 dubbed the mandate a tax—and that tax happens to hit the middle class hard. The most recent IRS data show that in 2016, of the $3.6 billion in mandate penalties paid by American households, nearly 63% came from households with incomes of under $50,000, and more than 88% came from households with incomes below $100,000.

Second, as the Wall Street Journal reported back in July, Biden over the past two years deliberately utilized tax loopholes to avoid paying Obamacare taxes. By classifying more than $13 million in proceeds from books and speeches as profits from his corporations, rather than wage income, Joe and Jill Biden circumvented nearly $500,000 in self-employment taxes—taxes that fund Obamacare and Medicare.

Biden’s behavior, which multiple experts interviewed by the Journal called legally questionable, belies both his “Middle Class Joe” reputation and his support for Obamacare. Apparently, Biden supports Obamacare only if someone else will pay for it. But if a one-percenter like Joe Biden finds paying for the Affordable Care Act unaffordable for him, then whom would Biden hit to pay the $750 billion price tag of his Obamacare expansion efforts? Why, the middle class, of course.

Biden’s unwillingness to pay the taxes associated with an Obamacare law he purportedly wants to protect epitomizes Margaret Thatcher’s axiom that socialists eventually run out of other people’s money. At the rate he and his fellow candidates are racking up costly health care promises, that moment seems very near at hand.

This post was originally published at The Daily Wire.

Three Elements of a Conservative Health Care Vision

Recently I wrote about how conservatives failed to articulate a coherent vision of health care, specifically issues related to pre-existing conditions, in the runup to the midterm elections. That article prompted a few Capitol Hill colleagues to ask an obvious question: What should a conservative vision for health care look like? It’s one thing to have answers on specific issues (i.e., alternatives to Obamacare’s pre-existing condition regulations), but what defines the vision of where conservatives should look to move the debate?

Henceforth, my attempt to outline that conservative health-care vision on a macro level with three relatively simple principles. Others may express these concepts slightly differently—and I take no particular pride of authorship in the principles as written—but hopefully they will help to advance thinking about where conservative health policy should lead.

Portable Insurance

Conversely, conservatives believe in insurance purchased by individuals—or, as my former boss Jim DeMint likes to describe it, an insurance policy you can buy, hold, and keep. With most Americans still obtaining health coverage from their employers, a move to individually owned coverage would mean individuals themselves would decide what kind of insurance to purchase, rather than a business’s HR executives.

Conservatives should also promote the concept of portable insurance that can move from job to job, and ideally from state to state as well. If individuals can buy an insurance policy while young, and take it with them for decades, then much of the problem of covering individuals with pre-existing conditions will simply disappear—people will have the same insurance before their diagnosis that they had for years beforehand.

I wrote approvingly about the Trump administration’s proposals regarding Health Reimbursement Arrangements precisely because I believe that, if implemented, they will advance both prongs of this principle. Allowing employees to receive an employer contribution for insurance they own will make coverage both individual and portable, in ways that could revolutionize the way Americans buy insurance.

A Sustainable Safety Net

As it is, the Medicare program became functionally insolvent more than a year ago. The year before Obamacare’s passage, the Medicare trustees asserted the program’s hospital insurance trust fund would become insolvent in 2017. Only the double-counting included in Obamacare—whereby the same Medicare savings were used both to “save Medicare” and fund Obamacare—has allowed the program to remain solvent, on paper if not in fact.

Reasonable people may disagree on precisely where and how to draw the line at the sustainability of our entitlements. For instance, I hold grave doubts that able-bodied adults belong on Medicaid, particularly given the way Obamacare’s expansion of Medicaid has encouraged states to discriminate against individuals with disabilities and the most vulnerable.

But few could argue that the current system qualifies as sustainable. Far from it. With Medicare beneficiaries receiving more from the system in benefits than they paid in taxes—and the gap growing every year—policy-makers must make hard choices to right-size our entitlements. And they should do so sooner rather than later.

Appropriately Aligned Incentives

Four decades ago, Margaret Thatcher hinted at the primary problem in health care when she noted that socialists always run out of other people’s money. Because third-party insurers—in most cases selected by HR executives at individuals’ place of business rather than the individuals themselves—pay for a large share of health expenses, most Americans know little about the price of specific health care goods and services (and care even less).

To state the obvious: No, individuals shouldn’t try to find health care “deals” in the ambulance on the way to the hospital. But given that much health care spending occurs not for acute cases (e.g., a heart attack) but for chronic conditions (i.e., diabetes), policymakers do have levers to try to get the incentives moving in the right direction.

Reforming the tax treatment of health insurance—which both encourages individuals to over-consume care and ties most Americans to employer-based insurance—would help align incentives, while also encouraging more portable insurance. Price transparency might help, provided those prices are meaningful (i.e., they relate to what individuals will actually pay out-of-pocket). Giving individuals financial incentives to shop around for procedures like MRIs, or even surgical procedures, also would place downward pressure on prices.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Graham-Cassidy and Conservative Health Reform

In its February budget submission to Congress, the Trump administration endorsed legislation “modeled after” the bill Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) introduced last year, which would devolve much of Obamacare’s entitlement spending to the states.

The budget claims this legislation “would allow states to use the block grant for a variety of approaches in order to help their citizens.” But based on the most recent public version, the Graham-Cassidy bill needs significant changes to deliver true flexibility to states.

The administration endorsed Graham-Cassidy because it believes the legislation would give states flexibility to embrace a “variety of approaches” to health care and health insurance. But would the most recent version of the bill allow Idaho to implement its reforms without federal intrusion? In a word, no.

In at least two respects, Idaho’s plan violates the many federal requirements that would remain intact under Graham-Cassidy. Idaho’s proposal to allow annual limits of over $1,000,000, and its proposal to allow surcharges of up to 50 percent for individuals who do not maintain continuous coverage, both contravene the Washington-imposed regulatory apparatus Graham-Cassidy retains.

This raises an obvious question: If the only state-based insurance reform plan proposed to date violates Graham-Cassidy, then how much “flexibility” does the legislation really provide? To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, conservatives have not spent the past eight years fighting to roll back a Washington-based, regulatory leviathan imposed by a Democratic Congress, only to see that leviathan reimposed by a Republican one.

To its credit, the Trump administration has worked to roll back Obamacare’s regulatory regime. Consistent with its promise in the budget to generate “relie[f] from many of [Obamacare’s] insurance rules and pricing restrictions,” the administration has proposed rules allowing greater access to short-term insurance coverage and association health plans, both of which are exempt from some or all of the Obamacare statutory restrictions.

But make no mistake: While these actions will give some individuals freedom from Obamacare’s restrictions, they will not give states the control they deserve over their own insurance markets. To give the states the freedom that the Trump administration promised, Congress must repeal the federally imposed regulatory superstructure Obamacare created. Only by doing so will Washington give states the true flexibility to explore alternative visions of health care for their citizens—Graham-Cassidy’s stated goal.

If Congress does not act to give states freedom, a future Democratic administration will reimpose each and every health care regulation the Trump administration loosened—and many more besides. The Center for American Progress made as much crystal-clear recently, when in releasing the Left’s next plan for (more) government-run health care, it proposed legislation that would “leave little to no discretion to the Administration [of the day] on policy matters.”

To the Left, Obamacare isn’t about power so much as control. As President Reagan famously stated, the “little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital” think they can “plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.” To liberals’ unquenchable desire to arrogate more power in Washington, conservatives must respond with freedom—freedom for states, and ultimately to businesses and individuals, to buy the coverage they want, and innovate in ways that can lower health spending.

The Graham-Cassidy bill has other flaws. It retains most of Obamacare’s spending (albeit disbursed to the states through the block grant) and all of its major tax increases. But at its core, the debate over health care remains one of control: Whether Washington will try to micromanage 50 states and more than 300 million people, or whether states and citizens can lead the way. We stand with the people—and hope that, after eight years of promises, the Republican Congress finally does likewise.

This post, co-written with former Sen. Jim DeMint, was originally published at The Federalist.

Did Orrin Hatch Call the Wrong Party “Stupid” Over Obamacare?

Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch called Obamacare “the stupidest, dumbass bill” he’s ever seen at a recent American Enterprise Institute forum. “Some of you may have loved it,” he said. “And if you do, you are one of the stupidest, dumbass people I’ve ever met.”

Hatch ended up apologizing for his comment, but the question remains: If the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee considers Obamacare the “stupidest, dumbass” law on earth, then why on earth are his fellow Republicans so desperate to bail it out?

But of course, that approach would involve actually repealing Obamacare. And instead of solving the underlying problem, by repealing the regulations that led premiums to increase, Republicans want to throw money at the problem, giving insurance companies corporate welfare payments hand-over-fist in the hope that these efforts will mitigate ever-rising premiums.

This strategy does seem like a “dumbass” approach for several reasons. First, it does not repeal Obamacare. Numerous studies have demonstrated that Obamacare’s regulations have raised premiums. Occam’s Razor concludes that, if Congress wants to solve the problem of higher premiums, it should start by fixing the underlying reason for those higher premiums.

Second, this approach not only does not repeal Obamacare, it also entrenches it by making it the federal government’s business to “lower” health insurance premiums. The federal government has no more business dictating the price of health insurance than it does the price of homes, or food, or shoes. But by throwing more money at the Exchanges, Republicans will make it the business of the federal government — and federal taxpayers — to “lower” health insurance premiums.

President Trump hinted at the fundamental problems this approach brings last month, when he tweeted about protests in Britain over the National Health Service (NHS). One need only watch Prime Minister’s Questions to observe the ways in which Members of Parliament in Britain turn the NHS into a political tool. Most opposition parties pledge to “fix” the NHS by throwing more money at it. And last month, Jeremy Corbyn, head of the Labour Party and Leader of the Opposition, attacked the Conservative Government for “refusing to give our NHS the money it needs and needs now.”

If the federal government takes political responsibility for health insurance premiums, the “stability” fund would soon turn into a perpetual — and perpetually expanding — money pit. Even with a theoretical expiration date, Congress would face pressure to renew the fund, lest premiums increase if it lapses. And if premiums continue to rise, politicians would propose even greater corporate welfare payments, to “stabilize” the markets with yet more taxpayer dollars.

That scenario leads to the third problem, which Margaret Thatcher famously described four decades ago: Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money.

That quote, coupled with our existing $20 trillion in federal debt, explains why, in their attempts to micro-manage the health insurance system from Washington, the Republican-Socialists who wish to bail out Obamacare have proposed much the same kind of “dumbass” policies as Hatch himself criticized.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

“Problem Solvers'” Obamacare Solution: Single Payer

On Monday, a bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus in the House released their list of “solutions” regarding Obamacare. Developed over the past several months, the list can easily be summed up in a single phrase: Single payer.

The lawmakers didn’t come out and say as much, of course, but that would be the net result. In funding more bailout spending for insurers, the proposal clearly states that Obamacare is “too big to fail”—that no amount of taxpayer funding is too great to keep insurers offering coverage on the health exchanges. Enacting that government backstop would create a de facto single-payer health-care system—only with many more well-priced insurer lobbyists around to demand more crony capitalist payments from government to their industry.

Cost-Sharing Reductions

In this scenario, how likely would you be just to give the burglar your property, so he could have the resources he needs? Probably not very. On the one hand, that would solve the burglar’s immediate problem, but the burglar broke the law—and ignoring that offense will only encourage future law-breaking.

That’s essentially the scenario facing Obamacare’s cost-sharing reduction payments, meant to subsidize discounted co-payments and deductibles for certain low-income individuals. Obamacare didn’t include an actual appropriation for the payments, so Barack Obama just made one up that didn’t exist. In essence, he stole both the constitutional spending power of Congress and taxpayer funds—recall that spending money without an appropriation is not just a civil, but a criminal, offense—to get Obamacare started.

Yet Congress seems far more worried about propping up Obamacare than holding President Obama to account—focusing solely on the outcomes to individuals, while caring not a whit for the effects on the rule of law. The Problem Solvers Caucus plan includes cost-sharing reduction payments with no accountability for the Obama Administration’s flagrant violation of the Constitution.

Reinsurance

The Problem Solvers Caucus plan also includes “stability fund” dollars designed to subsidize insurers for covering high-cost Obamacare enrollees. But here again, the proposal throws good money after bad at insurers, creating a new government program after non-partisan auditors concluded that insurers illegally received billions of dollars from the last federal bailout.

Last September, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that the Obama administration illegally funneled billions of dollars in reinsurance funds to health insurers rather than the U.S. Treasury. After taking in “assessments” (read: taxes) from employers, the text of Obamacare itself requires the government to repay $5 billion to the Treasury (to offset the cost of another Obamacare program) before paying health insurers reinsurance funds.

But when employer “assessments” generated less money than originally contemplated, the Obama administration put insurers’ needs for bailout funds over the law—and taxpayers’ interests. GAO found the Obama administration’s actions violated the law, costing taxpayers billions in the process.

Throwing Money at Problems

In general, the Problem Solvers Caucus attempts to solve problems by throwing money at them, by paying tens of billions of dollars (at minimum) to insurers. But as Margaret Thatcher pointed out four decades ago, socialism always runs out of other people’s money—a problem that the proposal wouldn’t solve, but worsen.

The Problem Solvers Caucus proposal amounts to little more than an Obamacare TARP—that’s Turning Against Repeal Promises (or Taking Away Repeal Promises, if you prefer). In abandoning the repeal cause, and setting up a federal backstop for the entire health-care system, the plan would create a de facto single-payer health-care system. Bernie Sanders would be proud.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

How Will Senate Health Bill Lower Premiums? Corporate Welfare

When the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) releases its estimate of Senate Republicans’ Obamacare discussion draft this week, it will undoubtedly state that the bill will lower health insurance premiums. A whopping $65 billion in payments to insurers over the next three years virtually guarantees this over the short-term.

Indeed, Senate Republican staff have reportedly been telling members of Congress that the bill is designed to lower premiums between now and the 2020 election—hence the massive amounts of money for plan years through 2021, whose premiums will be announced in the heat of the next presidential campaign.

Second, conservatives should consider what will happen four years from now, once the $65 billion has been spent. Ultimately, throwing taxpayer money at skyrocketing premiums—as opposed to fixing it outright—won’t solve the problem, and will instead just create another entitlement that health insurers will want to make permanent.

Where That Figure Comes From

Section 106 of the bill creates two separate “stability funds,” one giving payments directly to insurers to “stabilize” state insurance markets, and the second giving money to states to improve their insurance markets or health care systems. The insurer stability fund contains $50 billion—$15 billion for each of calendar years 2018 and 2019, and $10 billion for each of calendar years 2020 and 2021. The fund for state innovation contains $62 billion, covering calendar years 2019 through 2026.

Some have stated that the bill provides $50 billion to stabilize health insurance markets. That actually underestimates the funds given to health insurers in the bill. A provision in the state innovation fund section—starting at line 21 of page 22 of the discussion draft and continuing through to line 7 of page 23—requires states to spend $15 billion of the $62 billion allotted to them—$5 billion in each of calendar years 2019, 2020, and 2021—on stabilizing health insurers. (So much for state “flexibility” from Republicans.)

The Potential Impact on Premiums

What kind of per-person subsidy would these billions generate? That depends on enrollment—the number of people buying individual insurance policies, both on the exchanges and off. Earlier this month, the administration revealed that just over 10 million individuals selected a plan and paid their first month’s premium this year, and that an average 10 million Americans held exchange plans last year. Off-exchange enrollment data are harder to come by, but both the Congressional Budget Office and blogger Charles Gaba (an Obamacare supporter) estimate roughly 8 million individuals purchasing individual market plans off of the exchange.

On an average enrollment of 10 million—10 million in exchanges, and 8 million off the exchanges—the bill would provide an $833 per enrollee subsidy in 2018, 2020, and 2021, and $1,111 per enrollee in 2019. In all cases, those numbers would meet or exceed the average $833 per enrollee subsidy insurers received under Obamacare’s reinsurance program in 2014, as analyzed by the Mercatus Center last year.

How much would these subsidies lower premiums? That depends on the average premium being subsidized. For 2018 and 2019, premium subsidies would remain linked to a “benchmark” silver plan, which this year averages $5,586 for an individual. However, in 2020 and 2021, the subsidy regime would change. Subsidies would be linked to the median plan with a lower actuarial value—roughly equivalent to a bronze plan, the cheapest of which this year averages $4,392.

The bill therefore should—all else equal—reduce premiums by at least 15 percent or so, solely because of the “stability” payments to insurers. However, other changes in the bill may increase premiums. Effectively repealing the individual mandate by setting the penalty for non-compliance to $0, while not repealing most of the major Obamacare regulations will encourage healthy individuals to drop coverage, causing premiums to rise.

If CBO finds that the bill won’t reduce premiums by at least 15 percent, it’s because it doesn’t actually repeal the insurance mandates and regulations driving up premiums. The “stability” funding is simply using government funding to mask the inflationary effects of the regulations, at no small cost to taxpayers.

What About After the Presidential Election?

But what happens in years after 2021, when “stability” funding drops off by 75 percent? How “stable” is a bill creating such a dramatic falloff in insurer payments? How will such a falloff not create pressure to create a permanent new entitlement for insurers, just like insurers have pressured Republicans to create the “stability” funds after Obamacare’s “temporary” reinsurance program expired last year?

More than four decades ago, Margaret Thatcher properly pointed out that the problem with socialism is that it eventually runs out of other people’s money. Throwing money at insurers may in the short term bail them out financially and bail Republicans out politically. But it’s not sustainable—nor is it a substitute for good policy.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Repealing “Son of Obamacare”

The election of Donald Trump brings conservatives an opportunity to repeal a misguided piece of health care legislation that cost hundreds of billions of dollars, will blow a major whole in our deficit, has led to thousands of pages of regulations, and will further undermine the integrity of the doctor-patient relationship.

Think I’m talking about Obamacare?

I am — but I’m not just talking about Obamacare.

I’m also talking about the Medicare and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA), which passed last year (with a surprising level of Republican support) and contains many of the same flaws as Obamacare itself.

Just as Republicans are preparing legislation to repeal and replace Obamacare, they also need to figure out how to undo MACRA.

Last month, the Obama administration released a 2,398-page final regulation — let me say that again: a 2,398-page regulation — implementing MACRA’s physician reimbursement regime.

In the new Congress, Republicans can and should use the Congressional Review Act to pass a resolution of disapproval revoking this massive new regulation. They can then set about making the changes to Medicare that both Paul Ryan and Donald Trump have discussed: getting government out of the business of 1) fixing prices and 2) micro-managing the practice of medicine.

MACRA’S FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED, STATIST APPROACH

Since the administration released its physician-payment regulations — nearly as long as Obamacare itself – some commentary has emphasized (rightly) the burdensome nature of the new federal regulations and mandates.

But the more fundamental point, rarely made, is that we need more than mere tweaks to free doctors from an ever-tightening grip exercised by federal overseers. After more than a half century of failed attempts at government price-setting and micro-management of medical practice, it’s time to get Washington out of the business of playing “Dr. Sam” once and for all.

In fact, even liberals tend to acknowledge this occasionally. In a May 2011 C-SPAN interview, Noam Levey of the Los Angeles Times asked then-administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Donald Berwick why he thought the federal government could use Medicare as it exists to reform the health-care system:

In nearly half a century of federal-government oversight, the federal government hasn’t succeeded in two really important things: Number one, Medicare costs are still growing substantially more quickly than the economy; and number two, that fragmented [health care] system . . . has persisted in Medicare for 46 years now. . . . Why should the public, when it hears you, when it hears the President say, “Don’t worry, this time we’re going to make it better, we’re going to give you a more efficient, higher-quality health care system,” why should they believe that the federal government can do now what it essentially hasn’t really been able to do for close to half a century? [Emphasis added] 

Dr. Berwick didn’t really answer the question: He claimed that fragmented care issues “are not Medicare problems — they’re health system problems.” But in reality, liberal organizations like the Commonwealth Fund often argue Medicare can be leveraged as a model to reform the entire health care system — and that is exactly what MACRA, in defiance of historical precedent, tries to do.

When a 2012 Congressional Budget Office report examined the history of various Medicare payment demonstrations, it concluded that most had not saved money. A seminal study undertaken by MIT’s Amy Finkelstein concluded that the introduction of Medicare, and specifically its method of third-party payment, was one of the primary drivers of the growth in health-care spending during the second half of the 20th century.

After five decades of failed government control and rising costs driven by the existing Medicare program, the solution lies not in more tweaks and changes to the same program.

The answer lies in replacing that program with a system of premium support that gets the federal government out of the price-fixing business entirely.

The notion that the federal government can know the right price for inhalation therapy in Birmingham or the appropriate reimbursement for a wart removal in Boise is a fundamentally flawed and arrogant premise — one that conservatives should whole-heartedly reject.

Unfortunately, most critics of MACRA have not fully grasped this. A law that prompts the federal bureaucracy to issue a sprawling regulation of nearly 2,400 pages cannot on any level be considered conceptually sound.

Believing otherwise echoes Margaret Thatcher’s famous maxim about consensus politicians and conviction politicians: Some analysts, seeking a consensus among their fellow technocrats, push for changes to make the 2,400-page rule more palatable. But our convictions should have us automatically reject any regulation with this level of micro-management and government-enforced minutiae.

THE NEED FOR COMPREHENSIVE REFORM

It bears worth repeating that, in addition to perpetuating the statist nature of Medicare, MACRA raised the deficit by over $100 billion in its first ten years — and more thereafter — while not fundamentally solving the long-term problem of Medicare physician-payment levels.

More than a decade ago, after President Bush and a Republican Congress passed the costly Medicare Modernization Act (MMA), creating the Part D prescription-drug entitlement, conservatives argued even after the law’s passage that the new entitlement should not take effect. If the MMA was “no Medicare reform” for including only a premium-support demonstration project, conservatives should likewise reject MACRA, which includes nothing – not even a demonstration project — to advance the premium-support reform Medicare truly needs.

Any efforts focused on building a slightly better government health-care mousetrap distract from the ultimate goal: removing the mousetrap entirely. In his 1964 speech A Time for Choosing, Reagan rejected the idea “that a little intellectual elite in a far distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves” — and Republicans should do the same today.

In the context of health care, this means not debating the details of MACRA but replacing it, sending power back to where it belongs — with the people themselves.

Last week’s election results give the new Congress an opportunity to do just that, by disapproving the MACRA rule and moving to enact comprehensive Medicare reform in its place. After more than five decades of the same statist health care policies, it’s finally time for a new approach. Here’s hoping Congress agrees.

This post was originally published at National Review.

Has Mitch McConnell Gone Wobbly on Obamacare?

In the weeks after Saddam Hussein’s August 1990 invasion of Kuwait, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher famously remarked to President George H.W. Bush that “this was no time to go wobbly.” The Iron Lady’s maxim could well have applied to the Senate majority leader last week, when he made comments suggesting Republicans should have a hand in “fixing” Obamacare—the law collapsing in front of our very eyes—in 2017.

In comments at a Chamber of Commerce event in Louisville last Monday, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) said the law “is crashing”—an obvious statement to all but the law’s most grizzled supporters. But McConnell also “said the next president will have to work with Congress to keep the situation from worsening, though he did not specifically say the health care law would be repealed.”

Those last comments in particular—about the imperative to “fix” Obamacare—should cause conservatives to remember three key points.

1. It’s Not Conservatives’ Job to Fix Liberals’ Bad Law

A crass political point, perhaps, but also an accurate one. Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid rammed Obamacare through on a straight party-line vote, despite Republicans’ warnings, because, in President Obama’s words, “I’m feeling lucky.” These days, it’s the American people who might not be feeling so lucky, with insurers leaving the insurance exchanges in droves and premiums ready to spike.

Some might ask the reasonable question whether Republicans, as the governing party in Congress, should come together for the good of the country to make President Obama’s disastrous law work. But ask yourself what Democrats would do if the circumstances were reversed: Do you think that, if Republicans had enacted premium support for Medicare or personal accounts for Social Security on a straight-party line vote, and those new programs suffered from technical and logistical problems, Pelosi and Reid would put partisanship aside and try to fix the reformed programs? If you do, I’ve got some land to sell you.

We know Reid and Pelosi wouldn’t come together in the national interest, because they didn’t do so ten years ago to support the surge in Iraq. Instead, they passed legislation undermining the surge and calling for a troop withdrawal. The surge succeeded despite Reid and Pelosi, not because of them. So if Democrats abandoned the national interest to score political points a decade ago, why should Republicans bail them out of their Obamacare woes now?

2. Hillary Clinton’s Proposed ‘Solutions’ Range from Bad to Worse

But McConnell’s statement that “exactly how it [Obamacare] is changed will depend on the election” implies that a Clinton victory will allow her to set the tone and agenda for negotiations on “fixing” Obamacare. It also implies that Republicans should begin negotiating against themselves, and start rationalizing ways to accept proposals coming from a President Hillary: “Well, we could live with a government-run health plan, provided it were state-based…” or “We might be able to justify billions more in spending on new subsidies if…”

In addition to representing the antithesis of good negotiation, such a strategy brings with it both policy and political risk. Negotiating changes to Obamacare on a bipartisan basis puts Republicans on the hook if those changes don’t work. Clinton’s ideas for more taxes, regulations, and spending won’t make the exchanges solvent; if anything, they will only postpone the inevitable for a while longer.

3. Ridiculous Straw Men Can’t Justify Bailouts

Insurance industry spokesmen have been flooding Republican offices on Capitol Hill making this argument: Congress has to grant insurers massive new bailouts, or the American people will end up with a government-run health plan, or worse, single-payer health care.

That argument relies on several levels of specious reasoning. Unless Republicans lose both houses of Congress in November—a possible outcome, but an unlikely one—insurers’ argument pre-supposes that a Republican Congress will vote to enact a government-run health plan, or single-payer health care. As liberals themselves have pointed out, only one Democrat running for Senate this year even mentioned the so-called “public option” on his website. So why is this government-run health plan even a concern, when Reid couldn’t enact it in 2009 with a 60-vote Senate majority?

The honest answer is it probably isn’t—insurers are just trying to scare Republicans into bailing them out. It’s the oldest straw-man argument in the book: We must do something; this is something; therefore, we must do this.

If you don’t believe me, just read the following: “Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it the most. And more will die as a result. We know these things to be true.”

Those words come from none other than Barack Obama, as he tried to sell Obamacare in his address to Congress in September 2009. We know where that speech led us, and we should know better than to follow such illogical reasoning again.

Phineas Taylor Barnum once famously remarked that “There’s a sucker born every minute.” Here’s hoping that Republicans will disprove that adage next year, and decline to accept the sucker’s bet associated with trying to fix an inherently unfixable law.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.