HEALTH CARE COMPACT Blog

1-11-2012
Steve O'Keefe
Labor Unions Get Majority of Waivers

Has the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) become one more tool for politicians to favor their financial backers at public expense?

That's the cynical view of Rick Moran, blogging at American Thinker. Moran pointed us to a Daily Caller article last week about how the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has granted waivers from the ACA for 543,812 union workers.

By comparison, private employers received waivers for a mere 69,813 employees. It appears HHS favors labor unions over private employers by eight to one.

By and large, unions backed the health care overhaul, a law from which nearly a half million of their workers are now exempt.

In May of 2011, The Daily Caller ran an analysis showing that fully 20 percent of all waivers granted by the HHS were to employers in House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's congressional district. That led to a tightening of the rules for granting waivers amid growing howls of favoritism.

Despite the Obama administration's attempt to slide the new numbers into a Friday afternoon "news dump," the figures showing lopsided treatment toward labor unions are generating a backlash. Says Moran:

I don't know how you can argue with a straight face that the waiver process isn't rigged to benefit Obama political supporters. The real pain inflicted by the health care boondoggle will fall on small businesses--and yet they appear to be mostly frozen out of the process.

Source: "Surprise! Half a million union workers get Obamacare waiver since June," American Thinker, Jan. 8, 2012.
Source: "Labor unions primary recipients of Obamacare waivers," The Daily Caller, Jan. 6, 2012.
Image courtesy of A. Michael Simms used under its Creative Commons license.

Steve O'Keefe is a freelance writer, author, and book editor whose writing has appeared in numerous libertarian publications.

COMMENT
Permalink
ShareThis
1-10-2012
Steve O'Keefe
Sharpton to Lead ACA Rally

In an op-ed for the Huffington Post on Sunday, the Rev. Al Sharpton, president of the National Action Network, said his group will gather with others in front of the Supreme Court to express support for the new health care law on Monday, March 26. That's the day the court begins three days of hearings on the controversial law to rule on to decide three different challenges:

1. Are legal challenges premature under the Anti-Injunction Act?

2. Is forcing states to expand Medicaid an unlawful use of federal powers?

3. And the biggest issue is the individual mandate to purchase insurance or face a penalty unconstitutional?

Sharpton asks, "whether we are a cohesive country of laws or whether we are a divided states [sic] that would like to make up our own rules as we go along." Apparently, any government decisions made at the state level are considered "rules we make up as we go along" by Sharpton.

Sharpton's column also rails against a strict immigration law passed by Arizona, which is also headed to the court. The two cases "are clear attempts to diminish our federal government and lay the groundwork to give states more authority to do as they please."

As the court hearings cross paths with the presidential primary contests in late March, we can expect to hear from many other interest groups wanting to sway the court's opinions. We'd like to hear your opinion about the court case against the Affordable Care Act. How do you think the Supreme Court will rule on these three issues? How do you think they should rule? Please use the comments section to make your opinions known.

Source: "Will We Be a Cohesive Country of Laws or a Divided States?" Huffington Post, Jan. 8, 2012.
Image courtesy of Red Carlisle used under its Creative Commons license.

Steve O'Keefe is a freelance writer, author, and book editor whose writing has appeared in numerous libertarian publications.

COMMENT
Permalink
ShareThis
1-9-2012
Steve O'Keefe
Update: Health Care Court Cases

Last month, we reported on an unexpected wrinkle in the Supreme Court's pending review of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). One plaintiff in the case may no longer be qualified to bring suit.

Mary Brown, proprietor of an auto repair business in Florida--an original plaintiff in the suit--declared bankruptcy. Because she is no longer in business, it is difficult for her to argue that her business will be harmed by the individual mandate provision of the ACA, which does not go into effect until 2014.

Brown was a member of the National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB), which filed the suit on her behalf. Last week, the NFIB requested permission to replace Brown in the suit with two other businesses whose owners claim they will be harmed by the bill. Emily Maltby, who broke the story for The Wall Street Journal, explains the substitution:

The motion filed Wednesday seeks to add two NFIB members as plaintiffs: Dana Grimes, the owner of a roofing company in Greenwich, N.Y., and David Klemencic, who runs a flooring business in Ellenboro, W.Va.

While the Supreme Court could dismiss the suit due to lack of standing, it is unlikely to do so. The court has not yet accepted the replacement plaintiffs, and court watchers believe the substitution by the NFIB, while not really necessary, is good insurance against dismissal.

Another story we reported here is making the news again. Last month, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder signed into law a measure that prohibits government entities in Michigan from extending health benefits to the domestic partners of employees.

Last week, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed suit against the state of Michigan and Snyder seeking repeal of the law. A similar law in Arizona was recently struck down by a federal appeals court.

David Ashenfelter of the Detroit Free Press quotes ACLU legal director Michael Steinberg, speaking at a press conference about the lawsuit:

This law was designed with one purpose in mind and that was to strip away health insurance coverage from same-sex couples.

The law applies to any domestic partners, whether of the same sex or the opposite sex. Contrary to a report in the Huffington Post, the law does not apply to state employees--only to employees of other government entities in Michigan. It also does not apply to state university employees. The Free Press attempts to explain the strange omissions:

Who the ban applies to is not entirely clear. Officials said it would affect employees of public schools and local governments, but not to state civil service employees or public university workers. Snyder said the universities are exempt because they enjoy autonomy in providing benefits under the state Constitution ... The governor said the law also doesn’t apply to most state workers because the state constitution gives the Michigan Civil Service Commission the authority to set compensation rates and benefits.

We cited the Michigan law as an example of the difficulties of imposing one national health care law on 50 unique states, each with its own culture, problem and solution. The Health Care Compact would allow states to determine their own health care policies without interference from the federal government.

Source: "Health-Law Opponents Try to Add Plaintiffs to Lawsuit," The Wall Street Journal, Jan. 5, 2012.
Source: "ACLU sues Snyder, state of Michigan over loss of same-sex-partner health benefits," Detroit Free Press, Jan. 5, 2012.
Image courtesy of Dan4th used under its Creative Commons license.

Steve O'Keefe is a freelance writer, author, and book editor whose writing has appeared in numerous libertarian publications.

COMMENT
Permalink
ShareThis