Why Pete Buttigieg’s Health Plan Might Be More Radical than Bernie Sanders’

During the most recent Democratic primary debate in New Hampshire, former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg claimed that his health-care plan, unlike the single-payer proposal advocated by Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, would “not polarize the American people.” But contra the candidate’s claims, Buttigieg’s health plan advocates a policy—government price controls on the entire health-care sector—even more far-reaching than Sanders’s socialist approach.

Others have exposed how Buttigieg’s plan would force people to buy insurance costing thousands of dollars, whether they want it or not. But his proposal for government price controls across a $4 trillion health-care sector represents the most radical idea yet—because, unlike Sanders’s plan, individuals appear to have no way to opt out.

National Price Controls

Buttigieg’s plan, released in September, would “prohibit health care providers from pricing irresponsibly by capping their out-of-network rates at twice what Medicare pays.” (Upon entering the race for the Democratic presidential nomination last November, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg also adopted this rate-capping provision in his health plan.) Buttigieg admits that, by capping out-of-network rates, his proposal would give insurers leverage to demand lower prices for in-network care, creating a de facto system of national price controls for the entire health-care sector.

Imposing price controls on nearly 20 percent of the American economy, and linking those price controls to Medicare rates, would have substantial distortionary impacts. For starters, Medicare often does not reimburse medical providers at a rate to recover their costs. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission estimated last March that hospitals would incur a -11 percent margin on their Medicare patients in 2019.

Moreover, because Medicare payment rates reflect the cost of treating the over-65 population—not many Medicare beneficiaries need maternity care, for instance—even supporters of capping rates have questioned the wisdom of linking such caps to Medicare levels.

More broadly, a national system of price controls could create health-care shortages. Facing reductions in pay, doctors could decide to retire early, and aspiring physicians could avoid the profession entirely. With the United States already facing a shortage of up to 121,900 physicians between now and 2032, Buttigieg’s price controls would reduce the physician supply still further.

Pathway to Single Payer—With No Exit

Despite the contrast he attempts to draw with Sanders’s plan, Buttigieg’s price controls would likely lead to a fully government-run system. Buttigieg admits a desire for his plan to provide a “glide path” to single-payer; its price controls provide an easy mechanism for such a transition.

By reducing the payments that private health insurers can offer doctors and hospitals, Buttigieg would slowly sabotage individuals’ existing coverage, throwing all Americans into a government-run health system. Indeed, his price caps provide an easy mechanism to force more and more individuals off their private coverage. While Buttigieg says he wants to cap payments at double Medicare rates, he could lower that cap over time. Of course, capping private health-care reimbursements at less than Medicare rates would all-but-guarantee private health insurance would cease to exist, because few doctors would agree to accept it.

Patients facing long waits for care would have no way to get around queues created by Buttigieg’s socialistic price controls. Sanders’s single-payer legislation allows physicians and patients to contract privately by paying cash for health-care services. But Buttigieg’s plan does not envision a mechanism for Americans to opt out of his price control regime. If Medicare pays $50 for a service, a patient could not pay a physician more than $100 for that service—no matter how experienced or qualified the physician, and no matter how desperate the patient.

The questionable constitutionality of Buttigieg’s plan belies its purportedly moderate nature. On the one hand, he would compel all individuals to pay for health insurance—whether they want it or not, and whether they use it or not. On the other, he would prohibit individuals from engaging in private transactions with their own doctors and hospitals if the amounts of those transactions exceed federally defined limits.

Differences in tone notwithstanding, Sanders and Buttigieg represent two halves of the same general approach to health care, expanding a technocratic leviathan that will attempt to micromanage nearly one-fifth of the economy from Washington. Doctors and patients, take note.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Three Ways Pete Buttigieg Is No Moderate

In recent weeks, former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg has enjoyed a boomlet in polls for the Democratic presidential nomination, helped in no small part by fawning press coverage. Politico and others have examined the candidate and his supposedly “moderate” message.

Rhetoric aside, however, the substance of Buttigieg’s policy plans seem anything but moderate. On multiple issues, Pete has embraced positions far to the left of anything Hillary Clinton dared endorse in her campaign four years ago, and which seem “moderate” only in comparison to the socialist delusions of candidates like Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

1. Big Tax Increases on the Middle Class

As I first noted last month, Buttigieg has supported at least one, and quite possibly several, tax increases on the middle class. His retirement security plan included one explicit tax increase on working families, endorsing legislation that would raise payroll taxes as part of a new regime of paid family leave.

The retirement white paper, released just before Thanksgiving, implicitly endorsed a second tax increase on the middle class as well. The plan proposed a new entitlement program, Long-Term Care for America, designed to replace the CLASS Act included in Obamacare, but which Congress repealed prior to its implementation due to solvency concerns. Buttigieg’s paper didn’t say how it would pay for the new spending created by the program, but other studies cited by the campaign did: They proposed another increase in the payroll tax, which would also fall on middle-class families.

I wrote about Buttigieg’s tax plans in the Wall Street Journal last month. Yet following that article, no one from the Buttigieg campaign bothered to refute, smack down, or otherwise correct my assertion that their candidate wants to tax middle-class families.

The deafening silence from the Buttigieg campaign regarding my op-ed suggests the candidate does indeed want to raise taxes on the middle class—he just hopes that no one will notice that fact. It seems like an ironic bit of silence, given that Buttigieg attacked Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) for being “extremely evasive” on the issue of middle-class tax increases last fall.

2. ‘Insurance, Whether You Want It or Not’

Buttigieg likes to advertise his health care plan as “Medicare for All Who Want It,” but as several stories over the holiday revealed, it comes with an intrusive twist. While his plan says that “individuals could opt out of public coverage,” they could do so only “if they choose to enroll in another insurance plan.”

In other words, Buttigieg would compel people to buy insurance—whether they want to or not, enforcing this revived individual mandate through the tax code. On April 15, individuals who didn’t enroll in health insurance the previous year would get a bill for coverage, which could total $5,000 or more, whether they wanted that coverage or not, and whether they knew they had that coverage or not.

It’s far from clear that this new “mandate on steroids” would pass constitutional muster. In 2012, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roberts blessed Obamacare’s mandate as a tax in part because “for most Americans the amount due will be far less than the price of insurance…It may often be a reasonable financial decision to make the payment rather than purchase insurance.”

Roberts justified Obamacare’s mandate as a tax because it gave the public a genuine choice: Buy insurance, or pay the IRS a tax. Buttigieg’s plan would give the public a Hobson’s choice: Buy insurance, or have insurance bought for you. It represents a significant increase in federal powers—one courts could (and should) strike down.

3. ‘Glide Path’ to Socialized Medicine

Notwithstanding his use of a strengthened individual mandate, Buttigieg ultimately wants to end up with a single-payer system of socialized medicine. He has made no bones about his objective, claiming that his health-care plan would provide a “glide path” to socialism.

As with most of the 2020 Democratic candidates who haven’t endorsed single payer explicitly, Buttigieg’s plan contains several characteristics designed to promote the growth of government-run health care. For instance, he would automatically enroll millions of individuals into the government-run health plan. (He claims Americans could opt out of the government plan, but if he wants the system to end in single payer, how easy would he make it for them to do so?) And he has proposed capping the amount that both private and public insurers can pay physicians and hospitals for health treatments, another way to funnel Americans into the government-run system.

Buttigieg’s plan would create the architecture to create a government-run system of socialized medicine. He just would build that edifice slightly more slowly than Sanders would. It represents but one of the big-government dreams of a candidate who, despite soothing rhetoric, has little in the way of policies to justify the term “moderate.”

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Unanswered Questions on Single Payer

This month’s Democratic presidential debate will likely see a continued focus on the single-payer health care proposal endorsed by Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. But for all the general discussion — and pointed controversy — over single payer at prior debates, many unanswered questions remain. The moderators should ask Sanders and Warren about the specific details of their legislation, such as:

►Section 901(A) of the bill states that “no benefits shall be available under Title XVIII of the Social Security Act” — i.e., Medicare. And an analyst with the liberal Urban Institute has said that “you can call (the bill) many things — from ambitious to unrealistic. But please don’t call it Medicare.” Why do you insist on calling your proposal “Medicare for All” when it would bear little resemblance to the Medicare program and, in fact, would abolish it outright?

►You have claimed that single payer will make health care a human right. But the bill itself does not guarantee access to a doctor — it only guarantees that patients will have their care paid for if they can find a doctor or hospital willing to treat them. In fact, in 2005, the Canadian Supreme Court ruled that “access to a waiting list is not access to health care,” because patients in that country’s single-payer system could not access care in a timely fashion. Why are you promising the American people access to care when your bill falls short of that promise?

►The Urban Institute estimated that a similar single-payer plan would raise national health care spending by $719.7 billion a year, because abolishing cost-sharing (e.g., deductibles, copayments, etc.) will increase demand for care. But the People’s Policy Project called Urban’s estimates “ridiculous,” because “there is still a hard limit to just how much health care can be performed because there are only so many doctors.” Which position do you agree with — the Urban Institute’s belief that individuals consuming more “free” health care will cause spending to rise, or the position that spending will not increase because at least some people who demand care will not be able to obtain it?

►Countries like Canada and Great Britain, both of which have single-payer health care systems, permit individuals to purchase private insurance if they wish — and many Canadians and Brits choose to do so. Why would you go beyond Canada, Britain and other countries to make private health insurance “unlawful” — and do you believe taking away individuals’ private insurance can pass constitutional muster with the Supreme Court?

►Four years ago, your Senate colleague Robert Menendez, D-N.J., was indicted for accepting nearly $1 million in gifts and favors from a Florida ophthalmologist. Menendez had tried to help that ophthalmologist — who was eventually convicted on 67 counts of defrauding Medicare — in a billing dispute with federal officials. Given this ethically questionable conduct by one of your own colleagues regarding the Medicare program, why does your legislation include no new provisions fighting fraud or corruption, even as it vastly expands the federal government’s power and scope?

►You have criticized President Donald Trump for his supposed attempts to “sabotage” the exchanges created under President Barack Obama’s health care law. How, then, would you stop a future Republican president from sabotaging a single-payer system when your legislation would vest more authority in the federal government than President Trump has?

Once Warren and Sanders finish answering these questions, the American people will likely recognize that, the senators’ claims to the contrary notwithstanding, single payer doesn’t represent a good answer for our health care system at all.

This post was originally published at USA Today.

Analyzing the Gimmicks in Warren’s Health Care Plan

Six weeks ago, this publication published “Elizabeth Warren Has a Plan…For Avoiding Your Health Care Questions.” That plan came to fruition last Friday, when Warren released a paper (and two accompanying analyses) claiming that she can fund her single-payer health care program without raising taxes on the middle class.

Both her opponents in the Democratic presidential primary and conservative commentators immediately criticized Warren’s plan for the gimmicks and assumptions used to arrive at her estimate. Her paper claims she can reduce the 10-year cost of single payer—the amount of new federal revenues needed to fund the program, over and above the dollars already spent on health care (e.g., existing federal spending on Medicare, Medicaid, etc.)—from $34 trillion in an October Urban Institute estimate to only $20.5 trillion. On top of this 40 percent reduction in the cost of single payer, Warren claims she can raise the $20.5 trillion without a middle-class tax increase.

The Left’s Health Care Vision a Prescription for Brute Government Force

Even as Democrats inveigh against President Trump for his alleged norm-shattering and contempt for the rule of law, their health care plans show a growing embrace of authoritarianism. For instance, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) recently dubbed the President’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky “a classic mafia-like shakedown.” He knows of which he speaks, because the Democratic agenda on health care now includes threats to destroy any entities failing to comply with government-dictated price controls.

The latest evidence comes from Colorado, where several government agencies recently submitted a draft report regarding the creation of a “state option” for health insurance. The plan would not create a state-run health insurer; instead, it would see agencies dragooning private sector firms to comply with government diktats.

The plan would “require insurance carriers that offer plans in a major market,” whether individual, small group, or large group, “to offer the state option as well.” In these state-mandated plans insurers must offer, carriers would have to abide by stricter controls on their administrative costs, in the form of medical loss ratio requirements, than those dictated by Obamacare.

For medical providers, the Colorado plan would use “payment benchmarks” to cap reimbursement amounts for doctors and hospitals. And if hospitals decline to accept these government-imposed price controls, the report ominously says that “the state may implement measures to ensure health systems participate.”

In comments to reporters, Colorado officials made clear their intent to coerce providers into this price-controlled system. Insurance Commissioner Michael Conway admitted that “If our hospital systems don’t participate, this won’t work….We can’t allow that to happen.” The head of Colorado’s Department of Health Care Policy and Financing, Kim Bimestefer, said that “if we feel that the hospitals are not going to participate, we will require their participation.”

State officials did not elaborate on the mechanisms they would use to compel participation in the state option. But they could attempt to require hospitals and insurers to participate in the new plan to maintain their license to operate in Colorado—a likely unconstitutional condition of licensure.

In threatening this level of coercion—agree to price controls, or we’ll shut down your business—Colorado Gov. Jared Polis imitated his fellow Democrat, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi’s proposed drug pricing bill, up for a vote in the House as soon as next month, would impose excise taxes of up to 95 percent of a drug’s sale price if companies refuse to “negotiate” with the federal government.

In its analysis of Pelosi’s legislation, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) noted that, because drug makers could not deduct the 95 percent excise tax for income tax purposes, “the combination of income taxes and excise taxes on the sales could cause the drug manufacturer to lose money if the drug was sold in the United States.” Perhaps unsurprisingly, CBO concluded that the excise tax would not generate “any significant increase in revenues,” as “manufacturers would either participate in the negotiating process”—because they have no effective alternative—“or pull a particular drug out of the U.S. market entirely.”

CBO also noted, in a classic bit of understatement, that Pelosi’s bill “could result in litigation,” for threatening losses on any company that dares defy the government’s offer of “negotiation.” But the left seems uninterested in abiding by limits on government power—or the consistency of its own arguments. As I noted this spring, other proposed legislation in Congress would abolish the private health care market. Less than one decade after forcing all Americans to buy a product for the first time ever, in the form of Obamacare’s insurance mandate, liberals now want to prohibit all Americans from purchasing care directly from their doctors.

These recent proposals continue a virulent strain of authoritarianism that has permeated progressivism’s entire history. Franklin Roosevelt threatened to invoke emergency powers during his first inaugural address, and Rahm Emanuel infamously said during the Great Recession that “you never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Make no mistake: The health care system needs patient-centered reform. But the true crisis comes from the progressives who would utilize blunt government force to seize control of one-fifth of the nation’s economy.

This post was originally published at The Daily Wire.

Three Obstacles to Senate Democrats’ Health Care Vision

If Democrats win a “clean sweep” in the 2020 elections—win back the White House and the Senate, while retaining control of the House—what will their health care vision look like? Surprisingly for those watching Democratic presidential debates, single payer does not feature prominently for some members of Congress—at least not explicitly, or immediately. But that doesn’t make the proposals any more plausible.

Ezra Klein at Vox spent some time talking with prominent Senate Democrats, to take their temperature on what they would do should the political trifecta provide them an opportunity to legislate in 2021. Apart from the typical “Voxplanations” in the article—really, did Klein have to make not one but two factual errors in his article’s first sentence?—the philosophy and policies the Senate Democrats laid out don’t stand up to serious scrutiny, on multiple levels.

Problem 1: Politics

The first problem comes in the form of a dilemma articulated by none other than Ezra Klein, just a few weeks ago. Just before the last Democratic debate in July, Klein wrote that liberals should not dismiss with a patronizing shrug Americans’ reluctance to give up their current health coverage:

If the private insurance market is such a nightmare, why is the public so loath to abandon it? Why have past reformers so often been punished for trying to take away what people have and replace it with something better?…

Risk aversion [in health policy] is real, and it’s dangerous. Health reformers don’t tiptoe around it because they wouldn’t prefer to imagine bigger, more ambitious plans. They tiptoe around it because they have seen its power to destroy even modest plans. There may be a better strategy than that. I hope there is. But it starts with taking the public’s fear of dramatic change seriously, not trying to deny its power.

Democrats’ “go big or go home” theory lies in direct contrast to the inherent unease Klein identified in the zeitgeist not four weeks ago.

Problem 2: Policy

Klein and the Senate Democrats attempt to square the circle by talking about choice and keeping a role for private insurance. The problem comes because at bottom, many if not most Democrats don’t truly believe in that principle. Their own statements belie their claims, and the policy Democrats end up crafting would doubtless follow suit.

Does this sound like someone who 1) would maintain private insurance, if she could get away with abolishing it, and 2) will write legislation that puts the private system on a truly level playing field with the government-run plan? If you believe either of those premises, I’ve got some land to sell you.

In my forthcoming book and elsewhere, I have outlined some of the inherent biases that Democratic proposals would give to government-run coverage over private insurance: Billions in taxpayer funding; a network of physicians and hospitals coerced into participating in government insurance, and paid far less than private insurance can pay medical providers; automatic enrollment into the government-run plan; and many more. Why else would the founder of the “public option” say that “it’s not a Trojan horse” for single payer—“it’s just right there!”

Problem 3: Process

Because Democrats will not have a 60-vote margin to overcome a Republican filibuster even if they retake the majority in 2020, Klein argues they can enact the bulk of their agenda through the budget reconciliation process. He claims that “if Democrats confine themselves to lowering the Medicare age, adding a [government-run plan], and negotiating drug prices, there’s reason to believe it might pass parliamentary muster.”

Of course Klein would say that—because he never worked in the Senate. It also appears he never read my primer on the Senate’s “Byrd rule,” which governs reconciliation procedures in the Senate. Had he done either, he probably wouldn’t have made that overly simplistic, and likely incorrect, statement.

Take negotiating drug prices. The Congressional Budget Office first stated in 2007—and reaffirmed this May—its opinion that on its own, allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices would not lead to any additional savings.

That said, Democrats this year have introduced legislation with a “stick” designed to force drug companies to the “negotiating” table. Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) introduced a bill (H.R. 1046) requiring federal officials to license the patents of companies that refuse to “negotiate” with Medicare.

While threatening to confiscate their patents might allow federal bureaucrats to coerce additional price concessions from drug companies, and thus scorable budgetary savings, the provisions of the Doggett bill bring their own procedural problems. Patents lie within the scope of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, not the committees with jurisdiction over health care issues (Senate Finance, House Ways and Means, and House Energy and Commerce).

While Doggett tried to draft his bill to avoid touching those committees’ jurisdiction, he did not, and likely could not, avoid it entirely. For instance, language on lines 4-7 of page six of the Doggett bill allows drug companies whose patents get licensed to “seek recovery against the United States in the…Court of Federal Claims”—a clear reference to matter within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committees. If Democrats include this provision in a reconciliation bill, the parliamentarian almost certainly advise that this provision exceeds the scope of the health care committees, which could kill the reconciliation bill entirely.

But if Democrats don’t include a provision allowing drug manufacturers whose patents get licensed the opportunity to receive fair compensation, the drug companies would likely challenge the bill’s constitutionality. They would claim the drug “negotiation” language violates the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition on “takings,” and omitting the language to let them apply for just compensation in court would give them a much more compelling case. Therein lies the “darned if you do, darned if you don’t” dilemma reconciliation often presents: including provisions could kill the entire legislation, but excluding them could make portions of the legislation unworkable.

Remember: Republicans had to take stricter verification provisions out of their “repeal-and-replace” legislation in March 2017—as I had predicted—due to the “Byrd rule.” (The provisions went outside the scope of the committees of jurisdiction, and touched on Title II of the Social Security Act—both verboten under budget reconciliation.)

If Republicans had to give up on provisions designed to ensure illegal immigrants couldn’t receive taxpayer-funded insurance subsidies due to Senate procedure, Democrats similarly will have to give up provisions they care about should they use budget reconciliation for health care. While it’s premature to speculate, I wouldn’t count myself surprised if they have to give up on drug “negotiation” entirely.

1994 Redux?

Klein’s claims of a “consensus” aside, Democrats could face a reprise of their debacle in 1993-94—or, frankly, of Republicans’ efforts in 2017. During both health care debates, a lack of agreement among the majority party in Congress—single payer versus “managed competition” in 1993-94, and “repeal versus replace” in 2017—meant that each majority party ended up spinning its wheels.

To achieve “consensus” on health care, the left hand of the Democratic Party must banish the far-left hand. But even Democrats have admitted that the rhetoric in the presidential debates is having the opposite effect—which makes Klein’s talk of success in 2021 wishful thinking more than a realistic prediction.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

California Is What’s Wrong with Obamacare

In recent days, California lawmakers have finalized their budget. The legislation includes several choices regarding health care and Obamacare, most of them incorrect ones. Doling out more government largesse won’t solve rising health costs, and it will cause more unintended consequences in the process.

Health Coverage for Individuals Unlawfully Present

This move has drawn the most attention, as the budget bill expands Medicaid coverage to illegally present adults aged 19-26. California will pay the full share of this Medicaid spending, as the federal government will not subsidize health coverage for foreign citizens illegally present in the United States.

As to those who disagree with this move, one can study the words of none other than Hillary Clinton. In 1993, she testified before Congress in opposition to giving illegal residents full health benefits, because “illegal aliens” were coming to the United States for health care even then:

We do not think the comprehensive health care benefits should be extended to those who are undocumented workers and illegal aliens. We do not want to do anything to encourage more illegal immigration into this country. We know now that too many people come in for medical care, as it is. We certainly don’t want them having the same benefits that American citizens are entitled to have.

If Clinton’s words don’t sound compelling enough, consider one way that California may finance these new benefits: By reinstating Obamacare’s individual mandate. To put it another way, people who obey the law (i.e., the mandate) will fund free health coverage for people who by definition have broken the law by coming to, or remaining in, the United States unlawfully.

A Questionable Individual Mandate

This issue faces multiple questions on both process and substance. First, the budget bill includes about $8 million for the state’s Franchise Tax Board to implement an individual mandate, but doesn’t actually contain language imposing the mandate. The bill that would reimpose the mandate, using definitions originally included in the federal law, passed the Assembly late last month, but faces opposition in the Senate.

Third, implementing the mandate imposes legal and logistical challenges. I argued in the Wall Street Journal last fall that states cannot require employers who self-fund health coverage to report their employees’ insurance coverage to state authorities. The mandate bill the Assembly passed does not include such a requirement.

Without a reporting requirement on employers, a mandate could become toothless, because the state would have difficulty verifying coverage to ensure compliance—people could lie on their tax forms and likely would not get caught. However, imposing a reporting regime, either through the mandate bill or regulations, would invite an employer to claim that federal labor law (namely, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act) prohibits such a state-based requirement.

More Spending on Subsidies

While the budget bill does not include an explicit insurance mandate, it does include more than $295 million to “provide advanceable premium assistance subsidies during the 2020 coverage year to individuals with projected and actual household incomes at or below 600 percent of the federal poverty level.”

Obamacare epitomized the problems that policy-makers face in subsidizing health insurance. The federal law includes a subsidy “cliff” at 400 percent of the poverty level. Households making just under that threshold can receive federal subsidies that could total as much as $5,000-$10,000 for a family, but if their income rises even one dollar above that “cliff,” they lose all eligibility for those subsidies.

By penalizing individuals whose incomes rise even marginally, the subsidy “cliff” discourages work. That’s one of the main reasons the Congressional Budget Office said Obamacare would reduce the labor supply by the equivalent of 2.5 million full-time jobs.

California decided to replace these work disincentives with yet more spending on subsidies. This year, the federal poverty level stands at $25,750 for a family of four—which makes 600 percent of poverty equal to $154,500. In other words, a family making more than $150,000 will now classify as “low-income” for purposes of the new subsidy regime.

Hypocrisy by Officials

The individual mandate bill gives a significant amount of authority for its implementation to Covered California, the state’s insurance exchange. The bill says the exchange will determine the amount of the mandate penalty, and determine who receives exemptions from the mandate.

Who runs California’s exchange? None other than Peter Lee, the man I previously profiled as someone who earns $436,800 per year, yet refuses to buy the exchange coverage he sells. Or, to put it another way, if the mandate passes, Lee will be standing in judgment of individuals who refuse to do what he will not—buy an Obamacare plan.

If you think that seems a bit rich, you would be correct. But it epitomizes the poor policy choices and hypocritical actions taken by officials to prop up Obamacare in California.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Democrats’ Single-Payer Health Care Bill Raises Serious Questions

On Tuesday, the House’s Democratic majority will hold its first formal proceedings on single payer legislation. The House Rules Committee hearing will give supporters an opportunity to move past simplistic rhetoric and answer specific questions about H.R. 1384, the House single payer bill, such as:

Section 102(a) makes “every individual who is a resident of the United States” eligible for benefits, regardless of their citizenship status. But in September 1993, Hillary Clinton testified before Congress that she opposed “extend[ing]” benefits to “those who are undocumented workers and illegal aliens,” because “too many people come [to the United States] for medical care as it is.” Do you agree with Secretary Clinton that single payer will encourage “illegal aliens” to immigrate to the United States for “free” health care?

Section 102(b) prevents individuals from traveling to the United States “for the sole purpose of obtaining” benefits. Does this provision mean that foreign nationals can receive taxpayer-funded health care so long as they state at least one other purpose—for instance, visiting a tourist site or two—for their travels?

Section 104(a) prohibits any participating provider from “den[ying] the benefits of the program” to any individual for any of a series of reasons, including “termination of pregnancy.” What if the nation’s more than 600 Catholic hospitals—which collectively treat more than one in seven American patients—refuse to join the government program because this anti-conscience provision forces them to perform abortions and other procedures in violation of their deeply-held religious beliefs? How will the government program make up for this lost capacity in the health care system?

Section 201(a) requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to compile a list of “medically necessary or appropriate” services that the single payer program will cover. Does anything in the bill prohibit the Secretary from including euthanasia—now legal in at least eight states—on that list of covered benefits?

Section 401(b) requires HHS to compile an “adequate national database,” which among other things must include information on employees’ hours, wages, and job titles. Will America’s millions of health care workers appreciate having the federal government track their jobs and income? Why does the bill contain not a word about employees’ privacy in this “adequate national database?”

Section 611 creates a system of global budgets to fund hospitals’ entire operating costs through one quarterly payment. But what if this lump-sum proves insufficient? Will hospitals have to curtail operations at the end of each quarter if they exceed the budget government bureaucrats provide to them?

Section 614(b)(2) prohibits payments to providers from being used for any profit or net revenue, essentially forcing for-profit hospital, nursing home, hospice, and other providers to convert to not-for-profit status. Coming on top of the bill’s virtual abolition of private insurers, how much will this collective destruction of shareholder value hurt average Americans’ 401(k) balances?

Section 614(c)(4) prohibits hospital providers from using federal operating funds to finance “a capital project funded by charitable donations” without prior approval. Does this restriction—preventing hospitals from opening new wings funded by private dollars—demonstrate how single payer will ration access to care, by limiting the available supply?

Section 614(f) bars HHS from “utiliz[ing] any quality metrics or standards for the purposes of establishing provider payment methodologies.” Does this prohibition on tying any provider payments to quality metrics serve as confirmation of the low-quality care a single payer system will give to patients?

Section 616 states that, if drug and device manufacturers will not agree to an “appropriate” price for their products—as defined by the government, of course—the HHS Secretary will license their patents away to other companies. But the average pharmaceutical costs approximately $2.6 billion to bring to market. How many fewer drugs will come to market in the future due to this arbitrary restriction on innovation?

Section 701(b)(2)(B) sets future years’ appropriations for the program based in part on “other factors determined appropriate by the [HHS] Secretary.” But this month, Nancy Pelosi filed suit against President Trump’s border emergency declaration, after she claimed that the declaration “undermines the separation of powers and Congress’s [sic] power of the purse.” How does allowing an unelected executive branch official to determine trillions of dollars in appropriations uphold Congress’ “power of the purse?”

Section 901(a)(1)(A) states that “no benefits shall be available under Title XVIII of the Social Security Act”—i.e., Medicare—two years after enactment. How does abolishing the current Medicare program square with the bill’s supposed title of “Medicare for All?”

If single payer supporters can answer all these queries at Tuesday’s hearing, many observers will only have one other question: Why anyone thought the legislation a good idea to begin with.

This post was originally published at Fox News.

Nancy Pelosi Violated Her Oath of Office

At their swearing in, members of Congress take an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Few members would openly admit to violating that oath. Nancy Pelosi just did.

In filing a lawsuit against Donald Trump’s border emergency late last week, the House speaker claimed that “the House will once again defend our democracy and our Constitution, this time in the courts.” But the facts demonstrate that the last time the House defended the Constitution in the courts, Pelosi actively worked to undermine that defense of constitutional principles.

Lawsuits, Then and Now

The complaint Pelosi filed last week claims that, in using the National Emergencies Act to redirect funds towards border security, President Trump violated both underlying statutes and Congress’ constitutional duty to appropriate funds. Unfortunately, however, as I pointed out at the time of the border declaration, it did not represent the first time the executive has violated both statutes and Congress’ appropriations power.

The text of Obamacare did not contain an appropriation for cost-sharing subsidies, which offset discounts on co-pays and deductibles provided to low-income individuals. The Obama administration requested funds for those subsidies, just as Trump requested funds for border security. In both cases, Congress turned down those requests—and in both cases, the executive concocted legal arguments to spend the funds anyway.

But when the House of Representatives sued in 2014 seeking to block President Obama’s unconstitutional appropriation of funds, did Pelosi—who claimed last week to “defend our democracy and our Constitution”—support the complaint? Quite the contrary. In fact, she filed two legal briefs in court objecting to the House’s suit, and claiming that Obamacare implied an appropriation for the cost-sharing subsidies.

Abrogating Congress’ Institutional Prerogatives

In a word, no. In the Obamacare lawsuit, she not only attacked House Republicans’ claims regarding the merits of their case, she attacked the House’s right to bring the claim against the executive in court.

When it comes to whether the House has suffered an injury allowing it to file suit, compare this language in the House’s lawsuit against Trump: “The House has been injured, and will continue to be injured, by defendants’ unlawful actions, which, among other things, usurp the House’s legislative authority,” with Pelosi’s claims in her brief regarding the Obamacare lawsuit:

Legislators’ allegations that a member of the executive branch has not complied with a statutory requirement do not establish the sort of “concrete and particularized” injury sufficient to satisfy Article III’s standing requirements….

[Permitting the House’s suit] would disturb long-settled and well-established practices by which the political branches mediate interpretive disputes about the meaning of federal law, and it would encourage political factions within Congress to advance political agendas by embroiling the courts in innumerable political disputes that are appropriately resolved using those long-established practices….Allowing suit in this case undermines, rather than advances, [Members’ institutional] interests—inevitably subjecting Congress to judicial second-guessing never contemplated by the Framers of the Constitution and compounding opportunities for legislative obstruction in ways that could greatly increase congressional dysfunction.

Also compare Pelosi’s language when talking about remedies available to the House with regards to Trump: “The House has no adequate or available administrative remedy, and/or any effort to obtain an administrative remedy would be futile,” with her claims that House Republicans had all sorts of options available to them to stop President Obama’s unconstitutional payments, short of going to court:

Concluding that there is standing in this case is…completely unnecessary given alternative and more appropriate tools available to legislators to object to executive branch actions that they view as inconsistent with governing law….

To start, legislators may always challenge executive action by enacting corrective legislation that either prohibits the disputed executive action or clarifies the limits or conditions on such action….Further, Congress has other means to challenge disputed interpretive policies, including many that do not require the concurrence of both houses. For example, Congress can hold oversight hearings, initiate legislative proceedings, engage in investigations, and, of course, appeal to the public.

Put Principle over Politics

I find Trump’s border security declaration troubling for the same reason I found the Obamacare payments troubling: they usurp Congress’ rightful constitutional authority. I took some solace in knowing that several congressional Republicans—not enough, but several—voted against the emergency declaration, while many others who voted with the president nevertheless expressed strong misgivings about the move, as well they should.

Compare that to congressional Democrats, not a single one of whom aired so much as a peep about Barack Obama “stealing from appropriated funds,” to use Pelosi’s own words regarding the Obamacare lawsuit. Would that more elected officials—both Republicans and Democrats—put constitutional first principles above partisan affiliations and political gain.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Liberals’ Situational Ethics on Constitutional Violations

A president requests billions of dollars to fulfill his main campaign promise. Congress turns him down, but the president finds a way to go around them and get his money anyway.

Donald Trump and his border emergency? Sure. But this description also applies to Barack Obama’s treatment of Obamacare. Examined from this context, the health care history raises questions about whether liberals’ outrage over Trump’s emergency declaration stems from his extralegal actions—or their underlying opposition to his border policies.

The Obama administration knew full well it lacked a lawful appropriation for the insurer payments. In 2013, it requested billions of dollars from Congress for such spending. But Congress refused to appropriate the money. Republicans, who by then controlled the House of Representatives, had no interest in giving dollars to prop up Obamacare, and even Democratic appropriators seemingly had other priorities to fund rather than insurer payments.

Facing a refusal from Congress to appropriate the cost-sharing subsidies, the Obama administration went ahead and spent the funds anyway. Administration officials concocted a theory that even though an express appropriation for the payments did not exist in law, the health care law implied an appropriation of funds. They paid the cost-sharing subsidies to insurers in conjunction with Obamacare’s premium subsidies, even though the two programs are authorized in different sections of the law, and should operate via two different cabinet departments.

Granted, the Obama administration used much more surreptitious means to accomplish its unconstitutional ends. Unlike Trump, who announced his emergency declaration to much fanfare, his predecessor did not draw attention to his extralegal maneuvering. It took House Republicans seven months to authorize a suit objecting to Obama’s actions. But the only two federal courts to rule on the matter found that the law did not include an appropriation for the cost-sharing payments, meaning that Obama violated the Constitution’s appropriations clause by spending funds without authorization.

In two separate legal briefs, the then-House minority leader claimed Obamacare did appropriate funds for the cost-sharing payments to insurers—a claim that federal courts rejected. But her briefs went even further, claiming that Congress had no standing to object to the executive’s encroachment on its spending power.

Pelosi’s briefs in the Obamacare case present numerous objections to Congress’ suit against the executive. She claimed that “allowing suit in this case undermines, rather than advances, [the House’s institutional] interests,” and would “subject Congress to judicial second-guessing” and allow for “legislative obstruction.” She argued that the House of Representatives had no standing to pursue claims against the executive on its own, without the Senate’s concurrence. And she pointed out that “Congress has numerous tools at its disposal to resolve routine disputes,” for instance “corrective legislation that…prohibits the disputed executive action.”

Pelosi claimed last week that Republicans’ decision to endorse Trump’s emergency declaration will set a precedent they will come to regret. She knows of which she speaks. While researching the issue in recent months, I found that Pelosi’s briefs from the Obamacare case mysteriously disappeared from her website (although thankfully are still archived online.) Quite possibly, Pelosi’s staff decided to remove the briefs from her website upon retaking the majority, because they recognize the inconvenient precedent they set—and which Pelosi will now have to explain away in both the legal and political realms.

Call this a hunch, but I doubt that…the Democratic lawmakers would content themselves with the remedies they have laid forth in their brief about Obamacare’s cost-sharing subsidies. Faced with a President spending billions of dollars on a deportation force never appropriated by Congress, would Nancy Pelosi merely content herself with conducting hearings and ‘appeal[ing] to the public,’ as her brief argues in the Obamacare context? Hardly.

That November 2016 article proved prescient in highlighting the dangers of situational ethics—politicians putting immediate policy wins ahead of larger constitutional principles. More than two years later, Pelosi may soon reap the whirlwind, when Trump’s Justice Department uses her Obamacare briefs to argue that the House of Representatives has no standing to challenge his emergency declaration.

Congressional Republicans should learn from Pelosi’s example, stand fast to their principles, and call Trump’s action for what it is: A usurpation of Congress’ power of the purse, a breach of the separation of powers, and a violation of the principles of limited government that conservatives hold dear.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.