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.

How Joe Biden Deliberately Avoided Paying Obamacare Taxes

In the campaign for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, Joe Biden has portrayed himself as Obamacare’s biggest defender. His health care plan, released this month, pledges to “protect the Affordable Care Act” and states that he “opposes every effort to get rid of this historic law.”

However, his campaign rhetoric in support of Obamacare overlooks one key fact: For the past two years, Joe Biden structured his financial dealings specifically to avoid paying a tax that funds “this historic law,” along with the Medicare program.

While the Bidens paid federal income taxes on all their income, they did not have to pay self-employment taxes on these millions of dollars in profits. The Bidens saved as much as $500,000 in self-employment taxes by taking most of their compensation as profits from the corporation, as opposed to salary.

The Journal cited multiple tax experts who called the Bidens’ move “pretty aggressive,” and a “pretty cut and dried” abuse of the system. Given that most of their income came from writing and speaking engagements, one expert called that income “all attributable to [their] efforts” as individuals and thus wage income, rather than a broader effort by any corporation resulting in profits.

Most important to Biden’s political future is what that foregone self-employment tax revenue would have funded. Section 9015 of Obamacare increased the tax’s rate from 2.9 percent to 3.8 percent for all income above $200,000 for an individual, and $250,000 for a family. By taking comparatively small salaries from their S corporations and receiving most of their income as profits from those corporations, the Bidens avoided paying a tax that funds an Obamacare law Joe Biden claims he wants to defend.

Moreover, the other 2.9 percent in self-employment tax helps finance the Medicare program, which faces its own bleak fiscal future. According to the program trustees, the program will become insolvent by 2026, just seven years from now. If people like Joe Biden use tax strategies to avoid paying self-employment taxes, Medicare’s date of insolvency will only accelerate.

During the last presidential election cycle, Sen. Bernie Sanders repeatedly returned to Hillary Clinton’s paid speeches before companies like Goldman Sachs. Both the more than $100 million in income Bill and Hillary Clinton generated from their speeches, and Hillary Clinton’s insouciance at the vast sums she received—“That’s what they offered,” she said of the $675,000 sum Goldman Sachs paid her to give three speeches—made her look out-of-touch with the concerns of families struggling to make ends meet.

Likewise, Biden’s 2020 competitors almost certainly will use the questions about his taxes to undermine his image as “Middle Class Joe.” Few middle-class families will make in a lifetime the $15.6 million in income that the Bidens received in but two years. Moreover, how can Joe Biden claim to defend Obamacare—let alone Medicare—when he created a tax strategy specifically to avoid paying taxes that fund those two programs?

In 2014, Barack Obama, whose administration proposed ending the loophole the Bidens used to avoid self-employment taxes, attacked corporations for seeking to migrate to lower-tax jurisdictions overseas: “It is true that there are a lot of things that are legal that probably aren’t the right thing to do by the country.” In Joe Biden’s case, his tax behavior probably wasn’t the right thing to help his political future either.

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.

Medicaid Expansion Has Louisianans Dropping Their Private Plans

If any state can serve as the poster child for the problems associated with ObamaCare’s Medicaid expansion, it’s Louisiana, which joined the expansion in 2016, after Democrat John Bel Edwards became governor. An audit released last year exposed ineligible Medicaid beneficiaries, including at least 1,672 people who made more than $100,000. But Louisiana’s Medicaid expansion has revealed another waste of taxpayer funds, both in the Pelican State and nationwide: the money spent providing coverage to people who already had health insurance.

Via a public-records request, the Pelican Institute obtained data demonstrating that thousands of Louisiana residents dropped their private coverage to enroll in Medicaid under the expansion. A spreadsheet compiled by the Louisiana Department of Health put the count between 3,000 and 5,000 people a month, and that doesn’t count those who enrolled in Medicaid first, then dropped private coverage.

When asked about the spreadsheet, Medicaid officials stated in an email that the Health Department “stopped producing” the data in late 2017 when it discovered its vendor’s information “was limited to [third-party liability] during the period of Medicaid enrollment.” Because the vendor couldn’t track beneficiaries before or after their Medicaid enrollment, the spreadsheet arguably underestimated the number of people dropping private coverage to enroll in Medicaid.

The Health Department’s internal spreadsheet information comports with other coverage estimates. A survey by Louisiana State University researchers found that, from 2015-17, enrollment in private insurance fell precipitously among low-income Louisiana residents eligible for Medicaid under the expansion. The number of people covered by private health insurance declined by tens of thousands, even as Medicaid enrollment skyrocketed by more than 141,000.

That masses of Louisiana residents canceled their private coverage to enroll in “free” Medicaid should surprise no one. In 2007 Massachusetts Institute of Technology economist Jonathan Gruber, who later became an architect of ObamaCare, concluded that some coverage expansions would see rates of “crowd-out”—government programs squeezing out private insurance—approaching 60%. Eight years later, Louisiana’s Legislative Fiscal Office estimated that crowd-out would cost taxpayers between $900 million and $1.3 billion over five years. Because enrollment in Medicaid expansion vastly exceeded initial projections, the true cost may rise far higher.

Federal budget analysts have yet to quantify the effect of crowd-out on Medicaid expansion—but they should, because estimates suggest that Washington is spending billions annually funding Medicaid for people with prior health coverage. Montana officials recently released a study boasting of 8,700 workers who would have employer-sponsored coverage but for Medicaid expansion, claiming that expansion provided “cost savings to businesses” of up to $114 million. Only in a bureaucrat’s mind would more government spending, taxes and government dependency represent “cost savings.”

In response to the Louisiana audit, the state recently purged more than 30,000 ineligible people from the rolls. Health Secretary Rebekah Gee claimed the action demonstrated how she and Gov. Edwards “want to make sure that only those that need Medicaid have Medicaid.” But good stewards of taxpayer dollars, upon receiving preliminary reports of people dropping coverage to enroll in Medicaid, would have demanded better data and fashioned policy solutions to address the problem. The Louisiana Department of Health did neither and stopped compiling the data.

Generations of Louisiana politicians, since Gov. Huey Long in the 1930s, have claimed that fostering an economy rooted in government dependence will lead to prosperity. But the more than 67,000 residents who have left the state in the past three years alone see a stagnant economy and a slowly sinking state. Louisiana can do better, and other states thinking about Medicaid expansion should think again.

This post was originally published at The Wall Street Journal.

Democrats’ Anti-Choice Agenda

In response to various abortion legislation enacted in Alabama, Georgia, Missouri, and other states, the left has called for a national day of protest on this Tuesday. The groups calling for the protest object to “Donald Trump’s anti-choice movement.”

The groups know of which they speak. The left wants to prohibit choice in medicine, by forcing doctors and health-care providers with religious objections to perform abortions. Multiple Democrat health-care bills would not only force taxpayers to fund abortions, they would commandeer doctors to perform abortions—not to mention other medical procedures that might violate their deeply held religious beliefs.

Existing Conscience Protections

The second conscience provision, the Church Amendment, exists in permanent federal law. It prohibits organizations from discriminating against individuals who refuse to participate in abortions or sterilizations. However, the Church Amendment’s provisions only apply to entities receiving grants or loans under certain statutes and programs:

  • The Public Health Service Act;
  • The Community Mental Health Centers Act;
  • The Developmental Disabilities Services and Facilities Construction Act; and
  • Contracts for biomedical or behavioral research under any HHS program.

The last three programs in particular represent a relatively small percentage of federal funding. And while the Public Health Service Act encompasses a broad set of programs, it does not contain nearly the amount of federal funding as larger entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid.

Single Payer Undermines Conscience Protections

Single-payer legislation in both the House (H.R. 1384) and Senate (S. 1129) would undermine conscience protections. These bills would create a new, automatic funding mechanism for the single-payer program.

Because the single-payer program would not get funded through the Labor-HHS appropriations bill, the Weldon Amendment conscience protections included in that measure would not apply to the program. For the same reason, the Hyde Amendment’s prohibition on taxpayer funding of abortion, also included in the Labor-HHS spending bill, would also not apply.

In theory, the Church Amendment conscience protections would still apply. However, these protections only apply to the discrete federal programs listed above, and therefore may not apply in all cases. Moreover, if existing federal grant programs get subsumed into a new single-payer system—as the sponsors of the legislation would no doubt hope—then conscience protections might go away entirely.

Medicare for America: No Conscience Protections At All

Eliminating conscience protections would fit the rubric established by the Medicare for America bill (H.R. 2452). As I pointed out in the Wall Street Journal last week, the legislation belies its “moderate” label, as it would ban all private health care. On top of that, language on page 51 of the version of the bill introduced earlier this month makes clear that conscience protections do not apply to any medical professional, under any circumstance:

(3) HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS.—Health care providers may not be prohibited from participating in the Medicare for America [sic] for reasons other than their ability to provide covered services. Health care providers and institutions are prohibited from denying covered individuals access to covered benefits and services because of their religious objections. This subsection supercedes any provision of law that allows for conscience protection.

Even more than the Sanders bill, this language makes clear: Doctors have zero conscience protections under Medicare for America, whether about abortion or any other issue. To put it another way, medical professionals can practice their faith for one hour at church on Sunday, but if they wish to live their religious beliefs, they must join another profession.

Philosophical and Practical Concerns

Beyond the moral concerns outlined above, abolishing conscience protections could come with very severe unintended consequences. More than 600 Catholic hospitals (to say nothing of hospitals with other religious affiliations) serve more than one in seven U.S. patients.

Would passage of these bills force these religiously affiliated facilities to close, rather than have the facilities and the professionals within them violate their consciences? And if facilities close, or doctors leave the profession rather than performing procedures that violate their deeply held religious beliefs, who will pick up the slack? After all, our nation already faces looming physician shortages, and the promise of “free” care under a government-run system will only encourage more consumption of health services.

Liberals might want to keep the focus on the state initiatives in Alabama and elsewhere. But forcing people to violate their religious beliefs, and potentially chasing doctors and nurses out of the medical profession as a result, represents the truly radical policy.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

This New Democratic Plan Would Ban Private Medicine

A few months ago, Sen. Kamala Harris raised eyebrows when she nonchalantly proclaimed her desire to abolish private health insurance: “Let’s move on.” Today, Ms. Harris’s quip seems quaint. The latest liberal policy idea would effectively end all private health care for many Americans.

The proposal, the Medicare for America Act, first appeared as a 2018 paper by the Center for American Progress. It was a plan to expand government-run health care. It’s been called “the Democratic establishment’s alternative” to Sen. Bernie Sanders’s single-payer scheme. In March, Democratic presidential hopeful Beto O’Rourke endorsed Medicare for America in lieu of the Sanders plan.

CNN declared that Mr. O’Rourke’s endorsement of Medicare for America demonstrates his “moderate path,” but the bill is anything but moderate. When Rep. Rosa DeLauro reintroduced Medicare for America legislation on May 1, she included a new, radical provision. The revised bill prohibits any medical provider “from entering into a private contract with an individual enrolled under Medicare for America for any item or service coverable under Medicare for America.” Essentially, this would bar program enrollees from paying for health care using their own money.

Liberals might claim this prohibition is more innocuous than it sounds, because Americans can still use private insurance under Medicare for America in some circumstances. But the legislation squeezes out the private insurance market in short order.

For starters, the law would automatically enroll babies in the new government program at birth. The Center for American Progress’s original paper admitted that the auto-enrollment language would ensure the government-run plan “would continue to grow in enrollment over time.” The bill would permit people to opt out of the government program only if they have “qualified health coverage” from an employer. And even employer-provided health insurance would soon disappear.

Under the bill, employees would be able to enroll in the government program without penalty, but their employers would have to pay a fee as soon as even one employee opts into the government insurance. It makes little sense to keep paying to provide private health coverage if you already have to pay for the public option. Small employers would get to choose between paying nothing for health care or shelling out enough for “qualified health coverage.” The migration of workers and firms into Medicare for America would be a flood more than a trickle, creating a de facto single-payer system.

With everyone enrolled in Medicare for America, truly private health care would cease to exist. You could obtain heavily regulated coverage from private insurers, similar to the Medicare Advantage plans currently available to seniors. But going to a doctor and paying $50 or $100 cash for a visit? That would be illegal.

Doctors would no longer be permitted to treat patients without the involvement of government bureaucrats. The thousands of direct primary-care physicians currently operating on a “cash and carry” basis would either have to change their business model entirely and join the government program or disappear.

Medicare for America is unique in this particular provision. Under current law, seniors in Medicare can privately contract with physicians, albeit with significant restrictions. Doctors who see Medicare patients privately must agree not to charge any patients through Medicare for two years. The House and Senate single-payer bills, while banning private health insurance entirely, would retain something approaching these current restrictions for people seeking private health care.

Rather than empowering Americans to get the health care they want, Democrats are intent on forcing them to buy what liberals say is best. They would give the government massive power over medicine—but patients would have none of their own.

This post was originally published in The Wall Street Journal.

The Real Threat to Seniors: Single Payer

No sooner had the president’s budget arrived on Capitol Hill last Monday than the demagoguery began. Within hours of the budget’s release, Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) tweeted that “One party wants to expand Medicare and Medicaid and the other wants to cut them.” The facts, however, show a different contrast—one party attempting to keep a promise to seniors, and another abandoning that promise to fund other priorities.

First, the budget would not “cut” Medicare. As multiple administration officials explained during congressional hearings on the budget, Medicare spending would continue to rise every year under the president’s proposals. Only in a government town like Washington could lawmakers say with a straight face that a reduction in projected spending increases constitutes a “cut.”

Third, the budget proposals would yield tangible benefits to seniors through lower Medicare cost-sharing. A proposed rule released in July found that one of these changes would lower beneficiary co-payments by $150 million in one year. If enacted in full, seniors would see billions of dollars in savings over the ten-year budget window.

Fourth, and most importantly, legislation Schatz supports wouldn’t “expand” Medicare and Medicaid, it would eliminate them. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ single-payer bill, which Schatz has co-sponsored, would, in addition to ending Medicaid, liquidate the Medicare trust funds, using the proceeds to finance the new government-run program. As I noted last year, that makes Sanders’ bill, as well as similar legislation introduced in the House last month, not “Medicare for All” but “Medicare for None.”

That raid on the Medicare trust funds represents not just an accounting gimmick, but a statement of Democrats’ priorities—or, rather, the lack of them. Medicare has long-term funding problems, which the president’s budget attempts to address. But in using the Medicare trust funds as a piggy bank to finance a single-payer system—the full cost of which Democrats have no idea how to fund—the party shows how, in trying to provide all things to all people, it will abandon the most vulnerable.

Perhaps the best rebuttal to “Medicare for None” came from, of all people, Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD). In a speech on the House floor in September 2009, Hoyer said:

At some point in time, my friends, we have to buck up our courage and our judgment and say, if we take care of everybody, we won’t be able to take care of those who need us most. That’s my concern. If we take care of everybody, irrespective of their ability to pay for themselves, the Ross Perots of America, frankly, the Steny Hoyers of America, then we will not be able to take care of those most in need in America.

Therein lies the true flaw in the left’s logic. Whereas the president’s budget would work to protect Medicare for vulnerable seniors, Schatz, Sanders, and their supporters would liquidate the Medicare trust fund to finance “free” health care for Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk. The choice between the two paths seems as obvious as it is clear.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Let the Individual Mandate Die

In May New Jersey imposed a health-insurance mandate requiring all residents to buy insurance or pay a penalty. More states will feel pressure to follow suit in the coming year as the federal mandate’s penalty disappears Jan. 1 and state legislatures reconvene, some with new Democratic majorities intent on “protecting” Obamacare. But conflicts with federal law will make state-level health-insurance mandates ineffective or unduly onerous, and governors and legislatures would do well to steer clear.

While states can require citizens to purchase health coverage, they will have trouble ensuring compliance. Federal law prohibits the Internal Revenue Service from disclosing tax-return data, except under limited circumstances. And there is no clear precedent allowing the IRS to disclose coverage data to verify compliance with state insurance requirements.

Accordingly, mandates enacted in New Jersey and the District of Columbia earlier this year created their own coverage-reporting regimes. But those likely conflict with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or ERISA, which explicitly pre-empts “any and all state laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan.” The point is to protect large employers who self-insure workers from 50 sets of conflicting state laws.

No employer has used ERISA to challenge Massachusetts’ 2006 individual mandate, which includes reporting requirements, but that doesn’t mean it’s legal. Last month a Brookings Institution paper conceded that “state requirements related to employer benefits like health coverage may be subject to legal challenge based on ERISA preemption.”

A 2016 Supreme Court ruling would bolster such a challenge. In Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual, the court struck down a Vermont law that required employers to submit health-care payment claims to a state database. The court said the law was pre-empted by ERISA.

Writing for a six-justice majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted the myriad reporting requirements under federal law. Vermont’s law required additional record-keeping. Justice Kennedy concluded that “differing, or even parallel, regulations from multiple jurisdictions could create wasteful administrative costs and threaten to subject plans to wide-ranging liability.”

Justice Kennedy’s opinion provides a how-to manual for employers to challenge state-level insurance mandates. A morass of state-imposed insurance mandates and reporting requirements would unnecessarily burden employers with costs and complexity. It cries out for pre-emptive relief.

Unfortunately, policy makers have ignored these concerns. Notes from the working group that recommended the District of Columbia’s individual mandate never mention the reporting burden or ERISA pre-emption. And in August the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services approved New Jersey’s waiver application that relied in part upon funding from that state’s new individual mandate, even though money from the difficult-to-enforce requirement may never materialize.

States already cannot require federal agencies to report coverage. This means their mandates won’t track the 2.3 million covered by the Indian Health Service, 9.3 million receiving health care from the Veterans Administration, 8.8 million disabled under age 65 who are enrolled in Medicare, 9.4 million military Tricare enrollees and 8.2 million federal employees and retirees.

If a successful ERISA challenge also exempts some of the 181 million with employer-based insurance from coverage-reporting requirements, state insurance mandates become farcical. States would have to choose between mandates that run on the “honor system”—thus likely rife with cheating—or taking so much time and energy to verify coverage that administration becomes prohibitively expensive.

States should take the hint and refrain from even considering their own coverage mandates. But if they don’t, smart employers should challenge the mandate’s reporting requirements. They’d likely win.

This post was originally published at The Wall Street Journal.

Of Course Russian Trolls Used Obamacare Repeal to Divide Americans

Full disclosure: I am not a Russian troll.

On Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal published an analysis of nearly 10,000 tweets published by accounts linked to the Internet Research Agency (IRA), a Russian-backed organization that Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicted for its attempts to interfere with the American electoral process.

It should go without saying, but no one should support efforts to interfere with, or otherwise corrupt, the American democratic process. Particularly given the way in which Russia’s authoritarian regime has stifled dissent and dismantled the country’s free and independent media, the IRA and Russian President Vladimir Putin have little business trying to lecture the United States on how to run a government.

That said, it seems unsurprising that the Russian government would attempt to use health care as a “wedge” issue to divide groups of Americans. The Journal article notes that “health policy [was a] natural target for the [Russian] provocateurs.”

In 2010, Democrats passed their health-care law through Congress on strict party lines, with not a single Republican vote. Health care in general, and Obamacare in particular, have remained polarizing issues ever since. The Journal also noted that the trolls’ Obamacare-related activity spiked last spring and summer, during the heat of the debate over “repeal-and-replace” legislation in Congress.

Health care, unlike most other issues, remains intensely personal to each American. Whereas many Americans might not care much about energy policy, or see how the North Atlantic Treaty Organization affects their daily lives, people have frequent and personal interactions with the health care system, whether for themselves or someone close to them. Everyone has a story and an opinion about health care.

Health care also has become a flashpoint for long-simmering political debates over the size and scope of government. Conservatives and libertarians oppose Obamacare because they view it as “big government” overreach. They would repeal the law, and scale back the involvement of government in general, and the federal government in particular, over the health care system.

By contrast, liberals want to go even further to expand government’s scope and reach—hence the renewed push for a single-payer health system. The Left views health care as a right, the number of uninsured and underinsured people as a scandal, and health concerns as a moral imperative that only government can address. Likewise, the vaccine debate plays to similar questions about the extent to which government can and should involve itself in health choices.

Almost one year ago, I wrote that “wisdom does not always lie with the loudest and the strongest. It requires us to listen to discern its voice.” A medium that attempts to digest “news” into a 280-character format seems tailor-made for the type of instant, emotional reactions that the IRA desires as a means to foment discord and dissent.

Combating Russian trolls requires actions by law enforcement and social media companies, yes, but it also requires some level of introspection by each one of us. Instead of simply “Amusing Ourselves to Death,” a phenomenon Neil Postman first described more than three decades ago, we should spend less time passively consuming media and more time thinking about what we consume. As I wrote last October:

At times, the cacophony of voices on Twitter, cable news, and in myriad other cultural venues might prompt us to wonder if anyone can make sense of it all, and maintain that inner peace. The story of Elijah on Horeb reminds us that wisdom and understanding remain always present in our lives—if only we search hard enough to find them.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.

Florida Democrats’ Campaign to Abolish Seniors’ Medicare

Full disclosure: I have done paid consulting work for Florida’s current governor, Rick Scott, in his campaign against Democratic Sen. Bill Nelson. And I have provided informal advice to Rep. Ron DeSantis, the Republican nominee for governor. However, neither the Scott nor DeSantis campaigns had any involvement with this article, and my views are—as always—my own.

On Tuesday, Democrats in Florida nominated an unusual candidate for governor, and it has nothing to do with his skin color or background. Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum, who would serve as Florida’s first African-American governor if elected, says on his campaign’s website that the health plan U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has offered at the national level “will help lower costs and expand coverage to more Floridians.”

SEC. 901. RELATIONSHIP TO EXISTING FEDERAL HEALTH PROGRAMS.

(a) MEDICARE, MEDICAID, AND STATE CHILDREN’S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM (SCHIP).—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, subject to paragraphs (2) and (3)—

(A) no benefits shall be available under title XVIII of the Social Security Act for any item or service furnished beginning on or after the effective date of benefits under section 106(a)… [emphasis added].

In case you didn’t know, Title XVIII of the Social Security Act refers to Medicare. Section 901(a)(1)(A) of Sanders’ bill, which he brands as “Medicare-for-all,” would prohibit the Medicare program from paying out any benefits once the single-payer system takes effect. Section 701(d) of his bill would liquidate the Medicare trust funds, transferring “any funds remaining in” them to the single-payer plan.

In other words, Democrats just nominated as a statewide candidate in Florida—a state with the highest population of seniors, and where seniors and near-seniors (i.e., all those over age 50) comprise nearly half of the voting electorate—someone who, notwithstanding Sanders’ claims about his single-payer bill, supports legislation that would abolish Medicare for seniors entirely. Good luck with that.

That’s What ‘Radical Experiment’ Means, Folks

The recent hullabaloo over an estimated budget score of the Sanders plan, which would require tens of trillions—yes, I said trillions—of dollars in tax increases, highlighted only one element of its radical nature. However, as I pointed out in a Wall Street Journal op-ed earlier this year, the Sanders experiment would go far beyond raising taxes, by abolishing traditional Medicare, along with just about every other form of insurance.

Everyone else, which is roughly 300 million people, would lose their current coverage. Traditional Medicare, Medicaid, and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program would all evaporate. Even the Federal Employee Health Benefit Program would disappear.

With those changes in coverage, people could well lose access to their current doctors. As a study earlier this summer noted, medical providers like doctors and hospitals would get paid at much lower reimbursement rates, of 40 percent lower than private insurance. (A liberal blogger claimed earlier this week that, because other payers reimburse at lower levels than private insurers, the average pay cut to a doctor or hospital may total “only” 11-13 percent.)

Doctors and hospitals would also have to provide more health care services to more people, since “free” health care without co-payments will induce more demand for care. If you think doctors will voluntarily work longer hours for even less pay, I’ve got some land I want to sell you.

Déjà vu All Over Again?

In 1983, the British Labour Party wrote an election manifesto that one of its own members of Parliament famously dubbed “the longest suicide note in history.” That plan pledged unilateral nuclear disarmament, higher taxes on the rich, to abolish the House of Lords, and renationalization of multiple industries.

Although Sanders’ bill weighs in at 96 pages in total, opponents of the legislation can sum up its contents much more quickly: “It abolishes Medicare for seniors.” That epithet could prove quite a short suicide note for Gillum—and the Left’s socialist dreams around the country.

This post was originally published at The Federalist.