ObamaCare

Posts filed under ObamaCare

The Slaughter Rule: Unprecedented

Filed in PoliticsTags: Constitutional Rights, Democrats, Legislature, Media Bias, ObamaCare, Republicans

Congressional democrats promoting the use of the so-called "Slaughter rule" - a self-executing or "deem and pass" rule that would allow the House of Representatives to "deem" as passed the Senate health care bill without bringing the bill to the floor of the House for consideration are attempting to rationalize their actions by claiming that Republicans have used self-executing rules in the past, and that, therefore, their opposition to the Slaughter rule is hypocritical.

On the surface, their claim sounds rather damning for Republicans, such as Mike Pence, who oppose the Slaughter rule. However, upon closer inspection, the democrats' claim proves specious.

Mike Pence: Hypocrite?

Democrats claim that Pence has voted for a self-executing rule three times. Let us examine those votes.

HR1003 (109th Congress, 2006)

HR1003 reads as follows:

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution, House Resolution 1000, amended by the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Rules now printed in the resolution, is hereby adopted.

Thus, HR1003 used a self-executing rule to deem as passed HR1000, which modifies the order of proceedings for the House of Representatives.. However, this use of a self-executing rule differs from the Slaughter rule in two critical aspects:

  1. HR1000 was a resolution that amended the order of proceedings for the House of Representatives. It was not a legislative act.
  2. HR1000 was originally brought to the floor of the House, and was referred to and amended by the Rules Committee. The use of the self-executing rule in HR1003 merely allowed House members to deem as passed the resolution as amended by the Rules Committee, rather than bringing the resolution to the floor again. Thus, the use of the self-executing rule was intended to circumvent normal House procedure, not to avoid voting on HR1000.

Verdict: the use of a self-executing rule in HR1003 in order to deem HR1000 as passed does not invalidate opposition to use of the Slaughter rule to deem the Senate health care bill as passed.

H.Res.653 (109th Congress, 2006)

H.Res.653 reads as follows:

Resolved, That the House hereby concurs in the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the bill (S. 1932) to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 202(a) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2006 (H. Con. Res. 95).

H.Res.653 represents the passage of a conference report for the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, and is a classic example of how bills typically become law in the U.S. Congress:

  1. The House or Senate (always the latter, if the bill involves levying taxes) passes a bill
  2. The other chamber considers and passes the same bill.
  3. If the second chamber amends the bill as passed by the first chamber, either the first chamber must pass the bill as amended by the second chamber, or else (as is typically the case), the two chambers seat a Conference Committee to iron out the differences between the two versions of the bill. The outcome of this process is known as a Conference Report.
  4. Both the House and the Senate then each pass the Conference Report, and the bill is then presented to the president.

In fact, the 109th Congress followed this process exactly in enacting the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005:

  1. The Senate passed S.1932 on November 03, 2005.
  2. The House passed H.R.4241 on November 18, 2005.
  3. The two bills were reconciled via Conference Report.
  4. The House passed the Conference Report on February 01, 2006, via H.Res.653.
  5. The Senate passed the Conference Report on February 08, 2006, via S.Con.Res.80.

Thus, H.Res.653 used a self-executing rule to deem as passed the Conference Report for S.1932, which the House originally passed as H.R.4241. However, it also differs from the Slaughter rule in two critical aspects:

  1. H.Res.653 deemed as passed a bill on which the House of Representatives had already voted: H.R.4241.
  2. H.Res.653 did not further modify the Conference Report for S.1932/H.R.4241. The Slaughter rule attempts to deem as "passed" the Senate health care bill, while at the same time amending that same bill. (The Slaughter rule "deems as passed" the Senate bill only upon House passage of a Reconciliation bill that amends the Senate bill.) Thus, the House will be engrossing a bill that it has at the same time amended.

Verdict: the use of a self-executing rule in H.Res.653 in order to deem the S.1932/H.R.4241 Conference Report as passed does not invalidate opposition to use of the Slaughter rule to deem the Senate health care bill as passed.

H.Res.572 (109th Congress, 2005)

The germane section of H.Res.572 reads as follows:

SEC. 2. Upon adoption of this resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 308 is hereby adopted.

Thus, the self-executing rule of H.Res.572 deems as passed a "technical correction", per H.Res.308, in the enrollment of H.R.3058 (an appropriations bill). However, it also differs from the Slaughter rule in two critical aspects:

  1. H.Res.572 merely deemed as passed a "technical correction" to a bill on which the House of Representatives had <em>already voted</em>: H.R.3058.
  2. H.Res.572 did not further modify the H.R.3058. The Slaughter rule attempts to deem as "passed" the Senate health care bill, while at the same time <em>amending</em> that same bill. (The Slaughter rule "deems as passed" the Senate bill only upon House passage of a Reconciliation bill that <em>amends</em> the Senate bill.) Thus, the House will be engrossing a bill that it has at the same time amended.

Verdict: the use of a self-executing rule in H.Res.572 in order to deem as passed a "technical correction" amendment to the already engrossed H.R.3058 does not invalidate opposition to use of the Slaughter rule to deem the Senate health care bill as passed.

Verdict: Mike Pence

Pence's opposition to the Slaughter rule cannot be considered to be hypocritical with respect to his previous support of self-executing rules in the House. None of his previous votes represents, supports, or justifies the intent of the Slaughter rule, since, in all cases in which Pence voted for a self-executing rule, he was doing so with respect to bills that had already been voted on and passed by the House.

Bonus: Et Tu, Steny?

Liberals in the media are bending over backward to paint the Republicans as hypocrites on the self-executing rule issue - but, ironically, in so doing, they merely display the hypocrisy of the Democrats. Consider Steny Hoyer, the House Majority Leader. Time, that bastion of liberal group-think, quotes a hyperventilating Hoyer in 2003. After complaining about the Republican majority limiting debate in the House (paging Nancy Pelosi... paging Nancy Pelosi...), Hoyer unloads this corker:

Not content with the denying the Minority to offer amendments and substitutes, the Majority has even refused to permit Democrats the chance to vote on the Majority's own bills. That is precisely what happened on June 12. This being the 23rd, that was 13 days ago. When the Republican leadership reported a self-executing rule providing for the adoption of the $82 billion plan over 10 years and an almost trillion-dollar plan over 20 years, accelerating the increased child tax credit for low-income people families, we didn't even get an opportunity to vote on the bill itself except by reference in a self-executing rule. What kind of lack of confidence does that display? What kind of process in pursuit of effectiveness does that mean that we are adopting? What kind of demeaning of democracy is the objective of efficiency resulting in? I would remiss to fail to note that barely 1 hour later, the House passed on a bipartisan vote -- you talk about bipartisan votes -- a nonbinding motion to instruct the conferees to accept the substantially more responsible Senate version of that bill, doing exactly the opposite of what a half an hour the House had voted on. Why? Because it had no full debate, and it was very ambivalent, and we knew the House was ambivalent, and you knew the House was ambivalent, and you were afraid, fearful that 12 or 15 Republicans, if allowed to vote on the substance as opposed to voting procedurally on a rule where party loyalty is so important, you were afraid to put the substance to the test of democracy, fearful that you would lose 12 to 15, and we would prevail in our position. House Democrats, of course, are trying to offer the same Senate bill as the substitute, but the Republican Majority blocked us from doing so.

Wow, sounds bad, huh? Sounds exactly like the Slaughter rule, doesn't it?

Except, it isn't.

Notice, if you will, Hoyer's mention of conferees. Why, those would be the sitting members of a Conference Committee, who return Conference Reports. That means that the House of Representatives had already voted on and passed the bill in question. The Conference Report regarded H.R.1308, which passed the house by a voice vote. The self-executing rule to deem the Conference Report as passed was in H.Res.270, which passed by roll-call vote. When Hoyer claims that the minority didn't get to vote on the bill, he is lying.

Dare I say it? Hoyer's ardent defense of the Slaughter rule is the epitome of hypocrisy. To wit, here is what Hoyer has to say about the Slaughter rule:

“We’re going to vote on a bill, on a rule, which would provide for the result that, if a majority are for it, that will adopt a bill, the Senate bill, which has had extensive debate, extensive exposure,” Hoyer said.

“Does anybody in this room doubt that you have to vote on that?” he said. “We will vote on it, in one form or another.”

I rest my case.

Other Self-Executing Rules in Republican-Controlled Houses

Clerical/Technical Corrections to Already Passed Bills

The following House Resolutions represent self-executing rules to deem as passed "clerical" or "technical" correction amendments to bills that have already been voted on and passed by the House:

  • H.Res.180, 104th Congress, 1995 (amending a Conference Report)
  • H.Res.393, 104th Congress, 1995 (amending a Conference Report)
  • H.Res.232, 105th Congress, 1997 (amending a Conference Report)
  • H.Res.71, 108th Congress, 2003 (amending a Conference Report)

All of the above uses of the self-executing rule apply only to amendments to bills already voted on and passed by the House of Representatives. As such, these House Resolutions do not justify the Slaughter rule to "deem as passed" the Senate health care bill, which the House has never brought to the floor for debate, much less voted and passed.

Consideration of Conference Reports

The following House Resolutions represent self-executing rules to deem as passed the Conference Report to already passed House bills:

  • H.Res.63, 1933
  • H.Res.510, 1948
  • H.Res.391, 104th Congress, 1996

All of the above uses of the self-executing rule apply only to deeming as passed Conference Reports for bills already voted on and passed by the House of Representatives. As such, these House Resolutions do not justify the Slaughter rule to "deem as passed" the Senate health care bill, which the House has never brought to the floor for debate, much less voted and passed.

Specifying House Procedures in Consideration of Other Bills

The following House Resolutions represent self-executing rules to specify the procedures and rules of debate in consideration of other House bills:

  • H.Res.336, 104th Congress, 1996
    (specifying the rules of debate for another bill under consideration by the House)
  • H.Res.386, 106th Congress, 1999
    (tabling a Conference Report)

The above use of the self-executing rule applies only to specifying the procedures and rules of debate for other bills under consideration by the House. These self-executing rules do not deem any bill to be passed. The first represents merely a procedural motion, and the second tables a Conference Report. As such, these House Resolutions do not justify the Slaughter rule to "deem as passed" the Senate health care bill, which the House has never brought to the floor for debate, much less voted and passed.

Summary

The 12 uses of self-executing rules referenced above break down as follows:

  • Consideration (passage or tabling) of Conference Reports: 5
  • Passage of clerical or technical correction amendments to Conference Reports: 5
  • Passage of rules of procedure for the House: 2

None of the referenced uses of a self-executing rule represent passage of a bill that has never been brought to the floor of, debated, and voted on by the House of Representatives. Thus, none of the above referenced uses of a self-executing rule justify, rationalize, or support the use of the Slaughter rule to "deem as passed" the Senate health care bill.

The use of the Slaughter rule to "deem as passed" the Senate health care bill, which has never been brought to the floor of, debated, or voted on by the House of Representatives is, therefore, unprecedented.

Life Expectancy And Quality of Health Care

Filed in Social IssuesTags: Constitutional Rights, ObamaCare

Often, proponents of nationalized health care will cite statistics indicating that the US lags with respect to life expectancy as compared with other industrialized nations that have some form of nationalized health care. Such comparisons are largely meaningless; life expectancy is not a meaningful metric of the quality of health care in a given country. As this white paper points out, in order to provide meaningful statistical analysis, a given metric must meet three criteria:

Any statistic that accurately measures health-care systems across nations must satisfy three criteria.  First, the statistic must assume actual interaction with the health care system.  Second, it must measure a phenomenon that the health care system can actually affect.  Finally, the statistic must be collected consistently across nations.

To summarize, a meaningful statistic must:

  1. Assume actual interaction with the health care system
  2. Measure a phenomenon that the health care system can actually affect
  3. Be collected consistently across nations

Life expectancy statistics do not satisfy this three-pronged requirement; in fact, it fails at least two out of three.

Assume Actual Interaction With the Health Care System

Life expectancy cannot be assumed to have actual interaction with the health care system.

Consider the 15 leading causes of death in the US (note: the order changes slightly from year-to-year, especially after the top 5 or so; however, the composition remains essentially the same):

  1. Heart Disease
  2. Cancer
  3. Stroke
  4. Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease
  5. Accidents
  6. Diabetes
  7. Alzheimer's Disease
  8. Influenza/Pneumonia
  9. Kidney Disease
  10. Septicemia
  11. Suicide
  12. Chronic Liver Disease/Cirrhosis
  13. Hypertension
  14. Parkinson's Disease
  15. Homicide

Note that Accidents (including motor vehicle accidents), Suicide, and Homicide cannot be assumed to have actual interaction with the health care system (with suicide being a possible exception). In fact, when adjusting for such non-health-related fatal injuries, the US ranks #1 in the world in Life Expectancy - indicating that, for those causes of death that can be assumed to have actual interaction with the health care system, the US health care system is the best in the world.

Measure a Phenomenon that the Health Care System Can Actually Affect

Given the leading causes of death, life expectancy does not measure phenomena that the US health care system can actually affect.

Consider the three leading causes of death: Heart Disease (30%), Cancer (23%), and Stroke (7%) cause 60% of all deaths in the US. These diseases are almost entirely caused by behavioral/lifestyle choices (diet, exercise, smoking, etc.). Including Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease (4%), which is caused almost entirely by smoking, and Diabetes (3%), which is caused almost entirely by diet, and fully 2/3 of all deaths in the US are caused by lifestyle and behavior choices over which the US health care system has no control or impact. Also including accidents (5%), the US health care system has no control over or impact on more than 70% of all deaths in the US.

And what impact do these behavioral/lifestyle choices have on life expectancy? According to one study, the listed criteria have the following (negative) impact on life expectancy:

  1. Smoking, Hypertension, High Cholesterol: 10 years
  2. Smoking: 6.3 years
  3. Employment Grade: 5.4 years
  4. Diabetes: 3.6 years
  5. Cholesterol: 1.9 years

Other studies have concluded that eradicating cancer deaths would increase life expectancy by 2.7 years, and eradicating risks from heart disease, stroke, and diabetes would increase life expectancy by 14 years.

Efficacy of US Health Care System: Cancer Survival

Further, to the extent that the US health care system may impact the leading causes of death, the US health care system proves its efficacy. Consider cancer: the US dominates Europe with respect to 5-year survival rates for overall cancer, as well as for specific cancers:
And apparently, the Europeans didn't include cancers discovered only upon death - which further skews the disparity. Clearly, to the extent that the health care system has an impact on diagnosis and treatment of cancer, the US health care system far surpasses the health care systems in Europe - and Canada, too, for that matter.

5-year Cancer Survival Rates, US vs. Europe

5-year Cancer Survival Rates, US vs. Europe

Recall, the argument in question here is whether or not life expectancy is a meaningful measurement of quality of health care. To preempt some arguments:

  1. It is a matter of efficacy, not of efficiency; thus, health care spending per capita or as a percentage of GDP is irrelevant. The point is that the US health care system is more efficacious with respect to diagnosis and treatment of cancer - a result that provides one argument to refute the assertion that life expectancy is a valid metric of quality of health care.
  2. Presumably, some of that increased spending in the US health care system goes to earlier and more frequent testing, which leads to commensurately earlier and more frequent diagnosis. Thus, the argument that the increased efficacy merely represents increased diagnosis rather than a quantifiable difference in quality of health care is tautological; as an argument, it is specious. With respect to cancer, timing of diagnosis is critical to successful treatment.

Meaningful Metrics of Life Expectancy

As has already been demonstrated, behavioral/lifestyle choices such as diet, exercise, and smoking are the primary contributors to the leading causes of death in the US. Other studies show a correlation between life expectancy and sanitation, clean water, income, and literacy rate. The CDC indicates that improvement in life expectancy in the 20th century can be partially attributed to vaccination, motor vehicle safety, safer workplaces, control of infectious diseases, decline in CHD deaths, safer/healthier foods, healthier mothers/pre-natal care, family planning, fluoridation of drinking water, reduction of tobacco. Yet other studies have identified marriage, religious involvement, optimism, and cleaner air as having positive impact on life expectancy.

Conclusion

Life expectancy is not a meaningful metric of quality of health care.

The health care system cannot be assumed to have an actual interaction with several of the leading causes of death in the US. More than 70% of the deaths in the US result from causes stemming from behavioral and lifestyle choices over which the health care system has no control or impact. For those causes of death upon which the health care system has some impact, the US health care system proves to be far more efficacious than the nationalized health care systems with which it is compared.

As my mother has always said: if it ain't broke, don't fix it - especially when the "fix" is government-controlled health care.

Dying to Find an Emergency Room

Filed in Social IssuesTags: Constitutional Rights, ObamaCare

Reilly Anzovino

Recently, an 18-year-old Canadian girl died in an ambulance en-route to the hospital, due to injuries suffered in a car accident.

The ambulance ride apparently took approximately 30 minutes to reach the Welland hospital, during which time the ambulance was rumored to have run out of oxygen. Ms. Anzovino, desparately in need of a blood transfusion, died shortly before arrival, due to internal bleeding.

Anzovino Route

Distance of three hospitals from the site of Reilly Anzovino's fatal car accident (click for larger image)

Local authorities have opened an inquiry into the situation, because the girl died while en-route to the emergency room - an emergency room at a hospital two towns away, because the emergency rooms at the two nearest hospitals had been closed.

For reference, see the map to the right.

Local authorities are defending the decision to close the emergency departments at the two hospitals nearest the accident, even though they were warned in advance that just this type of occurrence would result from the decision. The Fort Erie hospital was closed in September 2009. A concerned, retired doctor ardently protested the decision, and months prior, in June 2009, gave the following warning [emphasis added]:

At this point it might be helpful to clarify the different categories of medical emergencies. Basically, an emergency is a threat to life or limb. There are ordinary everyday emergencies and then there are time-critical emergencies. Time-critical emergencies require rapid attention, else death is an imminent risk. Along with all other emergencies, the time-critical ones routinely came directly to the ER where they were promptly moved to the head of the line and dealt with, within minutes, without fanfare. Hence they were next to ‘invisible’ as a type. By downgrading and bypassing ERs, forcing these problems out onto the highway in an ambulance, the non-medical managers have ‘created’ a new and visible time-critical type of emergency. These new time-critical emergencies are really bureaucratic artifacts.

Specifically, people with gunshot wounds in vital areas, unconscious people with difficulty breathing, people in shock bleeding massively, people with drug overdoses, people in anaphylactic shock, people with head injuries, and many more (I cant list them all), are the ones that would ordinarily be those moved to the head of the ER line. If they cannot be put at the head of the line because they are on an ambulance that has bypassed the hospital and is out there somewhere on the highway on a trip to a place too far away, they may just die in that ambulance. And that is in spite of all the good intentions of fine paramedics, for there are still certain things that only a doctor at a hospital can do.

In a statement that perfectly epitomizes the potentially life-threatening bureaucracy of nationalized health care, in response to questioning regarding the impact of the emergency department closures on the death of Ms. Anzovino, the Minister of Health had this to say [emphasis added]:

We are building a health care system in Ontario where every person in Ontario has access to the very best possible care as close to home as possible. Having said that, the reality is that sometimes people will have to travel to another community to be able to access the highly specialized care that is part of today’s health care system. I think people understand that we cannot provide highly specialized care in every community hospital. When it comes to emergency care, it’s vitally important, absolutely essential, that people get to where that specialized care is available as quickly as possible.

And adding insult to inury, regarding the closing of the emergency departments at the two hospitals in question (one of which he promised in 2002 to keep open), the Minister also stated the following:

I am absolutely convinced that the people in Niagara have better quality health care now than they did before.

Tell that to the family of Reilly Anzovino.

Nevermind that the closures are causing a quantifiable delay in emergency care. According to this article, the ambulances, paramedics, and patients are delayed an average of eight hours daily, and hours of wait-time have increased from 130 to 240 hours per month at the Niagra Falls Hospital, due to the shortage of emergency departments in the months since the closures. And the closures were supposedly necessary due to budget shortages, despite a 42% spending increase on health care in the Niagra Region in the past six years.

Aside from the emergency department closures, the region has experienced increased emergency-room wait times, delay and cancellation of surgeries (including serious cancer surgeries), increased hospital-bed closures, and an above-average death rate.

And liberals in the U.S. still wonder why the vast majority of Americans oppose nationalized health care?

Special note: Anzovino's parents have established a memorial scholarship for paramedic students, in their daughter's name. Details here.

HR3200: Tax On Individuals Without Acceptable Coverage

Filed in Politics, Social IssuesTags: Constitutional Rights, Health/Nutrition, HR3200, ObamaCare

HR3200 – Reading The Bill: Tax On Individuals Without Acceptable Coverage

I’m really getting sick of supporters of ObamaCare admonishing those who oppose it to read the bill. So, I’m working on a series in which I do just that, framing my opposition to the bill by referencing the actual wording of the proposed legislation.

Up next: HR3200’s tax on individuals without acceptable healthcare coverage, and debunking President Obama's lie that ObamaCare does not impose such a tax.

As part of his Sunday ObamaCare Blitzkreig, Obama told George Stephanopoulos that ObamaCare does not tax individuals who fail to pay for ObamaCare-approved health coverage:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?

OBAMA: Well, hold on a second, George. Here -- here's what's happening. You and I are both paying $900, on average -- our families -- in higher premiums because of uncompensated care. Now what I've said is that if you can't afford health insurance, you certainly shouldn't be punished for that. That's just piling on. If, on the other hand, we're giving tax credits, we've set up an exchange, you are now part of a big pool, we've driven down the costs, we've done everything we can and you actually can afford health insurance, but you've just decided, you know what, I want to take my chances. And then you get hit by a bus and you and I have to pay for the emergency room care, that's...

STEPHANOPOULOS: That may be, but it's still a tax increase.

OBAMA: No. That's not true, George. The -- for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I'm not covering all the costs.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy...

OBAMA: No, but -- but, George, you -- you can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase.

...

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I'm taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we're going to have an individual mandate or not, but...

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

(H/T Canticle4Leibowitz. Full transcript can be found at ABC.)

Jim Hoft and Bob Leibowitz go on to discuss Stephanopoulos reading Obama the dictionary definition of a tax, and Obama claiming that he was "stretching" the meaning of a tax by quoting the dictionary.

Theirs is certainly valid criticism, but I want to look at the wording of the bill itself, which likewise proves Obama to be telling yet another bald-faced lie.

Refer to pp. 167-168, Title IV — Amendments to Internal Revenue Code of 1986, Subtitle A—Shared Responsibility, Part 1 — Individual Responsibility, Sec. 401. Tax On Individuals Without Acceptable Health Care Coverage [emphasis added]:

IN GENERAL. — Subchapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new part:

‘‘PART VIII—HEALTH CARE RELATED TAXES

‘‘SUBPART A. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

‘‘SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

‘‘TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—

‘‘the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

This section is fairly straight-forward, and its intent is clear: if you do not pay for ObamaCare-approved health coverage, the IRS will impose a tax on you. The bill amends the IRS tax code, to define a new tax: a tax for failure to maintain acceptable health coverage.

So: a given individual is not paying a certain tax now, but under ObamaCare, that same individual will be paying that tax. That outcome is, by definition, a tax increase.

Oh, and by the way, it's in the Baucus Senate bill, too.)

President Obama: You Lie!

For reference and context, below are the above-referenced excerpts from HR 3200:

167 • HR 3200 IH
TITLE IV—AMENDMENTS TO INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986
8 Subtitle A—Shared Responsibility
9 PART 1—INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY
10 SEC. 401. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE
11 HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
12 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter A of chapter 1 of the
13 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at
14 the end the following new part:
15 ‘‘PART VIII—HEALTH CARE RELATED TAXES
16 ‘‘Subpart A—Tax on Individuals Without Acceptable
17 Health Care Coverage
18 ‘‘SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE
19 HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
20 ‘‘(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual
21 who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at
22 any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed
23 a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—

168 • HR 3200 IH
1 ‘‘(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross in
2 come for the taxable year, over
3 ‘‘(2) the amount of gross income specified in
4 section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

Coverage elsewhere: FoxNews, The P/Oed Patriot, BluegrassBulletin, Revolution By Constitution, My Take On Life, Politico

HR3200: Hostility Toward SMBs That Self-Insure

Filed in Politics, Social IssuesTags: Constitutional Rights, Health/Nutrition, HR3200, ObamaCare

HR3200 – Reading The Bill: Hostility Toward SMBs That Self-Insure

I’m really getting sick of supporters of ObamaCare admonishing those who oppose it to read the bill. So, I’m working on a series in which I do just that, framing my opposition to the bill by referencing the actual wording of the proposed legislation.

Up next: HR3200's hostility toward Small and Medium Businesses (SMBs) that self-insure.

We'll start with a look at SEC. 113, INSURANCE RATING RULES. Refer to page 21 line 23 through page 22 line 11, Sec. 113(b)(1)(C):

The Commissioner, in coordination with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Labor, shall conduct a study of the large group insured and self-insured employer health care markets. Such study shall examine...[t]he financial solvency and capital reserve levels of employers that self-insure by employer size.

Now, I'm not a businessperson; I'm just an engineer. That said, I don't understand how one can "examine...[t]he financial solvency and capital reserve levels" of a company without looking at that company's books. I have seen the argument from the left that this information is available in normal IRS paperwork, but I don't think so. Such IRS documents involve a company's income, expenditures, and losses for a given fiscal year. "Financial solvency and capital reserve levels" cannot be gleaned solely from such data.

Perhaps this information can be gleaned from the publicly available annual financial reports; however, publicly traded companies (which are the ones required to publish annual financial reports) are, I would assume, less likely to self-insure. It is the SMBs that would be most likely to self-insure - and at the same time, less likely to be publicly traded and therefore less likely to publish annual financial reports.

So, from where will the Commissioner get these data, without auditing the books of companies that self-insure?

Further, the bill explicitly states that its intent is to eliminate tax incentives for SMBs to self-insure. Refer to page 22 line 23 to page 23 line 3, Sec. 113(b)(2):

Such report shall include any recommendations the Commissioner deems appropriate to ensure that the law does not provide incentives for small and mid-size employers to self-insure or create adverse selection in the risk pools of large group insurers and self-insured employers.

To make matters worse, under Title VIII, Section 1802, Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund, subsection 1802(b)(1), the bill actually amends Chapter 34 of the Internal Revenue code, adding a new Subchapter B to impose a fine (tax) on companies that self-insure. Refer to page 830, lines 1-9, Sec. 1802(b)(1), quoting Internal Revenue code Chapter 34, Subchapter B, Section 4376, Self-Insured Health Plans:

SEC. 4376. SELF-INSURED HEALTH PLANS.

(a) IMPOSITION OF FEE.—In the case of any applicable self-insured health plan for each plan year, there is hereby imposed a fee equal to the fair share per capita amount determined under section 9511(c)(1) multiplied by the average number of lives covered under the plan.

(b) LIABILITY FOR FEE.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The fee imposed by subsection (a) shall be paid by the plan sponsor.

So, what is the "fair share per capita" fee amount? It is defined as follows:

Subject to subparagraph (B), the fair share per capita amount under this paragraph for a fiscal year (beginning with fiscal year 2013) is an amount computed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services for such fiscal year that, when applied under this section and subchapter B of chapter 34 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, will result in revenues to the CERTF of $375,000,000 for the fiscal year.

In other words, take $375 million, divide by the total of all employees under an employer self-insurance plan, and you get the "fair share per capita amount".

According to this report, 73 million Americans were in self-insurance plans in 2007. Using this number, employers who self-insure will be taxed at least $5 per employee, just to help fund the Health Care Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund (CERTF).

So, to summarize, HR3200 is hostile toward SMBs that self-insure:

  • SMBs that self-insure will be subjected to auditing in order to examine... financial solvency and capital reserve levels"
  • Recommendations will be made to ensure that tax laws "does not provide incentives for small and mid-size employers to self-insure"
  • SMBs that self-insure will be subjected to a "fair share per capita" tax to help fund the Health Care Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund (CERTF)

For reference and context, below are the above-referenced excerpts from HR 3200:

Page 21•HR 3200
22 (b) STUDY AND REPORTS.—
23 (1) STUDY.—The Commissioner, in coordina
24 tion with the Secretary of Health and Human Serv
25 ices and the Secretary of Labor, shall conduct a
26 study of the large group insured and self-insured
Page 22•HR 3200
1 employer health care markets. Such study shall ex
2 amine the following:
3 (A) The types of employers by key charac
4 teristics, including size, that purchase insured
5 products versus those that self-insure.
6 (B) The similarities and differences be
7 tween typical insured and self-insured health
8 plans.
9 (C) The financial solvency and capital re
10 serve levels of employers that self-insure by em
11 ployer size.
12 (D) The risk of self-insured employers not
13 being able to pay obligations or otherwise be
14 coming financially insolvent.
15 (E) The extent to which rating rules are
16 likely to cause adverse selection in the large
17 group market or to encourage small and mid
18 size employers to self-insure
19 (2) REPORTS.—Not later than 18 months after
20 the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commis
21 sioner shall submit to Congress and the applicable
22 agencies a report on the study conducted under
23 paragraph (1). Such report shall include any rec
24 ommendations the Commissioner deems appropriate
25 to ensure that the law does not provide incentives
Page 23 •HR 3200
1 for small and mid-size employers to self-insure or
2 create adverse selection in the risk pools of large
3 group insurers and self-insured employers. Not later
4 than 18 months after the first day of Y1, the Com
5 missioner shall submit to Congress and the applica
6 ble agencies an updated report on such study, in
7 cluding updates on such recommendations.

Page 830 •HR 3200
1 ‘‘SEC. 4376. SELF-INSURED HEALTH PLANS.
2 ‘‘(a) IMPOSITION OF FEE.—In the case of any appli
3 cable self-insured health plan for each plan year, there is
4 hereby imposed a fee equal to the fair share per capita
5 amount determined under section 9511(c)(1) multiplied by
6 the average number of lives covered under the plan.
7 ‘‘(b) LIABILITY FOR FEE.—
8 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The fee imposed by sub
9 section (a) shall be paid by the plan sponsor.
10 ‘‘(2) PLAN SPONSOR.—For purposes of para
11 graph (1) the term ‘plan sponsor’ means—
12 ‘‘(A) the employer in the case of a plan es
13 tablished or maintained by a single employer,
14 ‘‘(B) the employee organization in the case
15 of a plan established or maintained by an em
16 ployee organization,
17 ‘‘(C) in the case of—
18 ‘‘(i) a plan established or maintained
19 by 2 or more employers or jointly by 1 or
20 more employers and 1 or more employee
21 organizations,
22 ‘‘(ii) a multiple employer welfare ar
23 rangement, or
24 ‘‘(iii) a voluntary employees’ bene
25 ficiary association described in section
26 501(c)(9),
Page 831 •HR 3200
1 the association, committee, joint board of trust
2 ees, or other similar group of representatives of
3 the parties who establish or maintain the plan,
4 or
5 ‘‘(D) the cooperative or association de
6 scribed in subsection (c)(2)(F) in the case of a
7 plan established or maintained by such a coop
8 erative or association.
9 ‘‘(c) APPLICABLE SELF-INSURED HEALTH PLAN.—
10 For purposes of this section, the term ‘applicable self-in
11 sured health plan’ means any plan for providing accident
12 or health coverage if—
13 ‘‘(1) any portion of such coverage is provided
14 other than through an insurance policy, and
15 ‘‘(2) such plan is established or maintained—
16 ‘‘(A) by one or more employers for the
17 benefit of their employees or former employees,
18 ‘‘(B) by one or more employee organiza
19 tions for the benefit of their members or former
20 members,
21 ‘‘(C) jointly by 1 or more employers and 1
22 or more employee organizations for the benefit
23 of employees or former employees,
24 ‘‘(D) by a voluntary employees’ beneficiary
25 association described in section 501(c)(9),
Page 832 •HR 3200
1 ‘‘(E) by any organization described in sec
2 tion 501(c)(6), or
3 ‘‘(F) in the case of a plan not described in
4 the preceding subparagraphs, by a multiple em
5 ployer welfare arrangement (as defined in sec
6 tion 3(40) of Employee Retirement Income Se
7 curity Act of 1974), a rural electric cooperative
8 (as defined in section 3(40)(B)(iv) of such Act),
9 or a rural telephone cooperative association (as
10 defined in section 3(40)(B)(v) of such Act).

Page 825 •HR 3200
5 ‘‘(c) FAIR SHARE PER CAPITA AMOUNT.—
6 ‘‘(1) COMPUTATION.—
7 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subpara
8 graph (B), the fair share per capita amount
9 under this paragraph for a fiscal year (begin
10 ning with fiscal year 2013) is an amount com
11 puted by the Secretary of Health and Human
12 Services for such fiscal year that, when applied
13 under this section and subchapter B of chapter
14 34 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, will
15 result in revenues to the CERTF of
16 $375,000,000 for the fiscal year.
17 ‘‘(B) ALTERNATIVE COMPUTATION.—
18 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—If the Secretary is
19 unable to compute the fair share per capita
20 amount under subparagraph (A) for a fis21
cal year, the fair share per capita amount
22 under this paragraph for the fiscal year
23 shall be the default amount determined
24 under clause (ii) for the fiscal year.
Page 826 •HR 3200
1 ‘‘(ii) DEFAULT AMOUNT.—The default
2 amount under this clause for—
3 ‘‘(I) fiscal year 2013 is equal to
4 $2; or
5 ‘‘(II) a subsequent year is equal
6 to the default amount under this
7 clause for the preceding fiscal year in
8 creased by the annual percentage in
9 crease in the medical care component
10 of the consumer price index (United
11 States city average) for the 12-month
12 period ending with April of the pre
13 ceding fiscal year.
14 Any amount determined under subclause
15 (II) shall be rounded to the nearest penny.
16 ‘‘(2) LIMITATION ON MEDICARE FUNDING.—In
17 no case shall the amount transferred under sub
18 section (b)(4)(B) for any fiscal year exceed
19 $90,000,000.

HR3200: You Will Lose Your Current Insurance

Filed in Politics, Social IssuesTags: Constitutional Rights, Health/Nutrition, HR3200, ObamaCare

HR3200 - Reading The Bill: You Will Lose Your Current Insurance

I'm really getting sick of supporters of ObamaCare admonishing those who oppose it to read the bill. So, I'm starting a series in which I do just that, framing my opposition to the bill by referencing the actual wording of the proposed legislation.

Up first: Obama's claim that "if you like your current plan, you can keep it."

This claim is a bald-faced lie, and one that I will demonstrate using the wording of the bill itself. Whatever your private insurance coverage is today, whether or not you are satisfied with it, you will be forced to move to another plan by 2018.

First, some background. Page 14 defines "Y1" through "Y5" as years 2013 and following. So, anything in the bill that takes place in Y1 takes place in 2013, and Y5 in 2017.

Now, let's get into the heart of the matter. Start with this statement from Page 19, lines 1-5:

IN GENERAL.—Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan.

We can establish thus far that, as of January 1, 2013, all health insurance plans must be either a) an "Exchange-participating" benefits plan, or b) a grandfathered plan.

An "Exchange-participating" benefits plan is, essentially, any plan that is "qualified" under HR 3200, according to qualification rules that will be determined and implemented by the government.

So, what is a "grandfathered" plan? From the rhetoric coming from Obama, one would assume that all currently existing plans would be "grandfathered". Not so.

According to Page 16, lines 3-26, Section 102, PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE:

GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

(B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PERMITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an individual who is covered as of such first day.

(2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except as required by law, the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day before the first day of Y1.

See that? Not all pre-existing plans will be considered as "grandfathered"; but rather only those that meet two very important conditions. To be considered "grandfathered", a plan must:

  1. Exist prior to January 1, 2013,
  2. Not enroll any new members on or after January 1, 2013 (except for adding dependents to existing plans, and
  3. Not change any of its terms or conditions on or after January 1, 2013

Now, how tenable are those requirements? Not very.

Are you insured through your employer? Do you think that your company will hire any new employees on or after January 1, 2013? Do you think that your employer will want to add those new employees to the company insurance plan? Do you think that your company might want to negotiate new or better coverage, or changes to deductibles, or make any other routine changes to your plan?

Of course. And if so, your insurance plan will no longer be grandfathered. Once it is no longer grandfathered, it will be subject to government control and subject to the requirements and qualifications for "Exchange-participating" plans.

However, let's make the extreme assumption that such a plan will exist, and will remain viable. You're in the clear, right? You'll be able to keep that coverage for as long as your grandfathered plan doesn't change and doesn't enroll any new members, right?

Wrong.

According to page 17, lines 11-19, Sec. 102(b), GRACE PERIOD FOR CURRENT EMPLOYMENT
9 BASED HEALTH PLANS
:

IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan years beginning after the end of the 5-year period beginning with Y1, an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1 must meet the same requirements as apply to a qualified health benefits plan under section 101, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 121.

Now, what is "an employment-based health plan in operation as of the day before the first day of Y1"? You guessed it: an otherwise "grandfathered" plan.

This clause clearly indicates that "grandfathered" plans are only truly grandfathered for the first five years (2013-2017). After this "grace period", all pre-existing employment-based health plans will be subject to government control and subject to the requirements and qualifications for "Exchange-participating" plans.

Thus, we have indisputably established that, according to the wording of HR 3200, you will be forced into a different health coverage plan from the one you have today, by 2018.

For reference and context, below is TITLE I—PROTECTIONS AND STANDARDS FOR QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN Subtitle A—General Standards, pages 14-19 of HR 3200:

Page 14 •HR 3200

14 TITLE I—PROTECTIONS AND
15 STANDARDS FOR QUALIFIED
16 HEALTH BENEFITS PLANS
17 Subtitle A—General Standards
18 SEC. 101. REQUIREMENTS REFORMING HEALTH INSUR
19 ANCE MARKETPLACE.
20 (a) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this title is to estab
21 lish standards to ensure that new health insurance cov
22 erage and employment-based health plans that are offered
23 meet standards guaranteeing access to affordable cov
24 erage, essential benefits, and other consumer protections.

Page 15 •HR 3200

1 (b) REQUIREMENTS FOR QUALIFIED HEALTH BENE
2 FITS PLANS.—On or after the first day of Y1, a health
3 benefits plan shall not be a qualified health benefits plan
4 under this division unless the plan meets the applicable
5 requirements of the following subtitles for the type of plan
6 and plan year involved:
7 (1) Subtitle B (relating to affordable coverage).
8 (2) Subtitle C (relating to essential benefits).
9 (3) Subtitle D (relating to consumer protec
10 tion).
11 (c) TERMINOLOGY.—In this division:
12 (1) ENROLLMENT IN EMPLOYMENT-BASED
13 HEALTH PLANS.—An individual shall be treated as
14 being ‘‘enrolled’’ in an employment-based health
15 plan if the individual is a participant or beneficiary
16 (as such terms are defined in section 3(7) and 3(8),
17 respectively, of the Employee Retirement Income Se
18 curity Act of 1974) in such plan.
19 (2) INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP HEALTH INSUR
20 ANCE COVERAGE.—The terms ‘‘individual health in
21 surance coverage’’ and ‘‘group health insurance cov
22 erage’’ mean health insurance coverage offered in
23 the individual market or large or small group mar
24 ket, respectively, as defined in section 2791 of the
25 Public Health Service Act.

Page 16 •HR 3200

1 SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT
2 COVERAGE.
3 (a) GRANDFATHERED HEALTH INSURANCE COV
4 ERAGE DEFINED.—Subject to the succeeding provisions of
5 this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable cov
6 erage under this division, the term ‘‘grandfathered health
7 insurance coverage’’ means individual health insurance
8 coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the
9 first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:
10 (1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in
12 this paragraph, the individual health insurance
13 issuer offering such coverage does not enroll
14 any individual in such coverage if the first ef
15 fective date of coverage is on or after the first
16 day of Y1.
17 (B) DEPENDENT COVERAGE PER
18 MITTED.—Subparagraph (A) shall not affect
19 the subsequent enrollment of a dependent of an
20 individual who is covered as of such first day.
21 (2) LIMITATION ON CHANGES IN TERMS OR
22 CONDITIONS.—Subject to paragraph (3) and except
23 as required by law, the issuer does not change any
24 of its terms or conditions, including benefits and
25 cost-sharing, from those in effect as of the day be
26 fore the first day of Y1.

Page 17 •HR 3200

1 (3) RESTRICTIONS ON PREMIUM INCREASES.—
2 The issuer cannot vary the percentage increase in
3 the premium for a risk group of enrollees in specific
4 grandfathered health insurance coverage without
5 changing the premium for all enrollees in the same
6 risk group at the same rate, as specified by the
7 Commissioner.
8 (b) GRACE PERIOD FOR CURRENT EMPLOYMENT
9 BASED HEALTH PLANS.—
10 (1) GRACE PERIOD.—
11 (A) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner
12 shall establish a grace period whereby, for plan
13 years beginning after the end of the 5-year pe
14 riod beginning with Y1, an employment-based
15 health plan in operation as of the day before
16 the first day of Y1 must meet the same require
17 ments as apply to a qualified health benefits
18 plan under section 101, including the essential
19 benefit package requirement under section 121.
20 (B) EXCEPTION FOR LIMITED BENEFITS
21 PLANS.—Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to
22 an employment-based health plan in which the
23 coverage consists only of one or more of the fol
24 lowing:

Page 18 •HR 3200

1 (i) Any coverage described in section
2 3001(a)(1)(B)(ii)(IV) of division B of the
3 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
4 of 2009 (Public Law 111–5).
5 (ii) Excepted benefits (as defined in
6 section 733(c) of the Employee Retirement
7 Income Security Act of 1974), including
8 coverage under a specified disease or ill
9 ness policy described in paragraph (3)(A)
10 of such section.
11 (iii) Such other limited benefits as the
12 Commissioner may specify.
13 In no case shall an employment-based health
14 plan in which the coverage consists only of one
15 or more of the coverage or benefits described in
16 clauses (i) through (iii) be treated as acceptable
17 coverage under this division
18 (2) TRANSITIONAL TREATMENT AS ACCEPT
19 ABLE COVERAGE.—During the grace period specified
20 in paragraph (1)(A), an employment-based health
21 plan that is described in such paragraph shall be
22 treated as acceptable coverage under this division.
23 (c) LIMITATION ON INDIVIDUAL HEALTH INSURANCE
24 COVERAGE.—

Page 19•HR 3200

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—Individual health insurance
2 coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance
3 coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered
4 on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-par
5 ticipating health benefits plan.
6 (2) SEPARATE, EXCEPTED COVERAGE PER
7 MITTED.—Excepted benefits (as defined in section
8 2791(c) of the Public Health Service Act) are not
9 included within the definition of health insurance
10 coverage. Nothing in paragraph (1) shall prevent the
11 offering, other than through the Health Insurance
12 Exchange, of excepted benefits so long as it is of
13 fered and priced separately from health insurance
14 coverage.