New Issue Paper: Medicaid Block Grants and Medicaid Performance

Linda Gorman, head of the Independence Institute‘s Health Care Policy Center, has written a new issue paper: Medicaid Block Grants and Medicaid Performance [pdf]

Introduction:

Governments at all levels are facing severe fiscal stress, and Medicaid is the largest and fastest growing publicly-funded health program in the United States. State and federal authorities have had little success in controlling Medicaid expenditures with conventional reforms, and changing it from an entitlement program to a block grant program is now under discussion.

This Issue Paper explores how transforming Medicaid into a block grant program offers the promise of improving patient care and restraining the growth in program costs.

Here’s a nice pull-out quote from the paper:

The case for Medicaid block grants is predicated on a … simple proposition: when people spend what they think of as their own money on their own health care, they spend less and get more than if they spend other people’s money.

Similar Posts:

Posted in Medicaid/Medicare/SCHIP | Tagged , | Leave a comment

It’s Not Just the Mandate: ObamaCare’s Other Infringements

Paul Hsieh, MD reviews how ObamaCare violates our liberties in ways other than forcing us to buy politically-controlled health plans. Controlling doctors is one aspect. He writes:

The escalating economic costs of ObamaCare are bad enough. But they pale in comparison to the coming escalating losses of our medical freedom. As a patient, do you want your doctor to be free to practice according his best independent judgment for your best medical interests, or compelled to practice according to government guidelines, beholden to the state for his livelihood?

via PJ Media » It’s Not Just the Mandate: ObamaCare’s Other Infringements.

Similar Posts:

Posted in Policy - National | Tagged , | Leave a comment

U.S. health care warning signs

At the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, Rituparna Basu provides useful links about:

  • Doctors struggling to make ends meet
  • Concierge medicine becoming popular
  • ObamaCare at 2 years old: bad news
  • Commercial insurers have trouble staying in business
  • Drug companies are less ambitious,
  • Super-high health plan premiums coming soon?

Read the whole post w/ reference: Health Care Roundup — VOICES for REASON.

Similar Posts:

Posted in Policy - National | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Memo to Justice Kagan: Taxes Are Coercive

At the Objective Standard blog, Ari Armstrong writes:

Apparently Justice Elena Kagan is oblivious to the obvious fact that taxes are coercive, in that they forcibly take wealth away from the owners of that wealth and give it to others. …

[Kagan] patently ignores the fact that the federal government collects “its” money by force, by threatening to lock people in cages if they don’t pay up, whereas the employer earns his money by trading value for value in the marketplace.

Read the whole post: Memo to Justice Kagan: Taxes Are Coercive.

Similar Posts:

Posted in mandatory insurance, Policy - National | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Your health care: Don’t trust the Colorado Trust

Colorado TrustThis article originally appeared in the print edition of the Boulder Daily Camera on March 31, 2012.

The Colorado Trust is a statewide grant-making foundation with assets exceeding $400 million. It claims to be “dedicated to achieving access to health for all Coloradans.”  The Trust and its grantees use shifty arguments to support ObamaCare‘s individual mandate, which requires Americans to purchase a politically-approved health plan. With the Supreme Court’s hearings on the mandate’s Constitutionality just completed, it’s time to reveal the flaws and deceptions behind the Trust’s advocacy.

Continue reading

Similar Posts:

Posted in Colorado health care, myths & fallacies, PPC | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Supreme Court & Health Care: Force Begets Force Under Health Mandates

At the Objective Standard blog, Ari Armstrong writes:

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Tuesday pertaining to the ObamaCare insurance mandate. At issue is whether the federal government may force people to purchase health insurance. The arguments demonstrate that the mandate is a response to the problems created by other government controls of health care and insurance.

Then he provides two excellent examples, and a quote by Justice Sonia Sotomayor that displays statism by implying that if something is worth doing, government must force people do it. Armstrong concludes:

The Supreme Court should do its job and limit Congress to its specifically enumerated powers. And regardless of how the Court rules, Congress—rather than attempt to mitigate the consequences of its existing controls by means of a new mandate—should roll back all its controls, protect rather than violate freedom of contract in the health insurance market, and leave Americans free to choose how to finance their own health care and whether and to what extent to provide charity.

Read the whole post: Force Begets Force Under Health Mandates.

Similar Posts:

Posted in charity, mandatory insurance, PPC | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

3 Reasons to End Obamacare Before it Begins

Reason.com provides three, ahem, reasons to end Obamacare:

  1. It Represents the End of Limited Government.
  2. Its Price Tag is Already Ballooning.
  3. Obamacare Won’t Make Us Healthier.

3 Reasons to End Obamacare Before it Begins! – Hit & Run : Reason Magazine.

Similar Posts:

Posted in mandatory insurance, Policy - National | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Kopel on Obamacare & the Supreme Court

The Colorado Independent reports:

The Independence Institute, a Denver-based free-market think tank that has led the charge in Colorado against the Affordable Care Act, has filed what it is calling two “potentially game changing” briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court. The court this week is hearing arguments on the constitutionality of the two-year-old law. …

Arguments around the law made in lower courts have centered on the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, which grants Congress the power to regulate business conducted across state lines. There is strong precedent supporting the legitimacy of the law from that standpoint and, in his main, first brief (pdf), Kopel seeks to shift the argument away from the Commerce Clause.

“What people… miss is that the Supreme Court itself tells us that issues like this– about purely intrastate activities such as buying health insurance– are really decided under the Necessary and Proper Clause,” Kopel said in a release, citing the clause that grants Congress the root authority to pass laws “necessary and proper” for exercising its other powers.

“There is new research just published by one of the top academic publishers in the world that shows the Necessary and Proper Clause was never meant to give the Congress the power to force you to buy something simply because the purchase would help ‘commerce’,” Kopel said. “The history of the Necessary and Proper Clause is very clear on that point. It’s just a matter of getting that history before the Court.”

Kopel’s second brief (pdf) concerns the expansion of Medicaid coverage guaranteed by the Affordable Care Act. Kopel said the law allows “federal bureaucrats, virtually at their uncontrolled whim, to bankrupt a state.”

He believes the law goes against a line of cases extending from as early as 1798, the latest being Alden v. Maine, was written in 1999 by Justice Anthony Kennedy, a likely key swing vote in the Affordable Care Act case.

Read the whole article Independence Institute on Obamacare: It’s not about the Commerce Clause | The Colorado Independent.

Read Dave Kopel’s comments on the March 26 Supreme Court hearings at JonCaldara.com.

(via Ari Armstrong)

Similar Posts:

Posted in PPC | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Tuesday, March 27: Hands Off My Healthcare Rallies in Colorado

From Americans for Prosperity:

On March 27th, Americans for Prosperity and partners will host rallies across the country, calling on the Supreme Court to uphold Americans’ individual freedom and rule that the ObamaCare individual mandate is unconstitutional.

Four rallies will be held in Colorado, at the following locations.

Westside Community Center
1628 West Bijou St.
Colorado Springs, CO 80904
6:00 p.m.
Click here to register!

Colorado State Capitol
200 East Colfax Ave
Denver, CO 80203
12:00 p.m.
Click here to register!

Grand Junction Courthouse
250 North 5th Street
Grand Junction, CO 81502
11:30 a.m.
Click here to register!

Message of Life Ministries
605 18th Street SW
Loveland, CO
6:00 p.m.
Click here to register!

Hands Off My Healthcare in Colorado | Americans for Prosperity.

Similar Posts:

Posted in Policy - National, PPC | Tagged , | Leave a comment

States can refuse federal health benefits exchanges

From a recent newsletter by the Citizens Council on Health Freedom:

States Can Resist and Refuse  (many haveCCHF “status of legislation” map)

This is a summary of an article out this morning: “If court upholds health care reform, states could still resist,” J.Lester Feder, Politico Pro, March 12, 2012.

Although Obamacare gives the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) the power to set up a federal exchange for states that refuse to set up their own, states have several sources of power against this incursion, according to the article:

  • “A federal exchange can’t function solo. It needs some help from a state’s Medicaid program and insurance department.”… “The exchange is very difficult to make work if there isn’t some level of cooperation,” said Joel Ario, who oversaw exchange policy at HHS before joining Manatt Health Solutions.
  • If the feds cut Medicaid funds to the states, it would be politically difficult and it would accomplish the exact opposite of what the law intends (expanded coverage).
  • If a state does not make the legally required changes to state programs, such as Medicaid, the federal exchange cannot work. As Mr. Feder notes, “To block the federal exchange [states] could just do nothing.
  • Even if HHS provided the federal exchange to a state, newly eligible Medicaid enrollees wouldn’t get benefits unless State officials added them to the rolls.
  • By declining to enforce new consumer-protection [sic] regulations to private insurance sold outside the exchange, the federal exchange could end up with all the people with the highest health costs — eventually forcing the plans in the exchange out of business.

Feder writes, “Cutting off Medicaid dollars would be both bad policy and bad politics. And usurping state powers would open HHS to massive accusations of a “federal takeover,” which could further inflame political attacks on the health care reform law.”

He also cites former Virginia Rep. Tom Davis, a moderate who says pragmatic Republicans, who have argued that their states should do exchange planning in case they lose in the Supreme Court, have already attracted challengers from the right. If the law is upheld, officials who cooperate could face primaries from those who promise to block an exchange at all costs.

Feder writes that Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli declines to rule out the possibility of civil disobedience. Says Cuccinelli: “It would be contrary to the law, yes,” [but] “It’s not like there’s criminal penalties out there. It becomes a power struggle.”

Subscribe to the Health Freedom Watch newsletter.

Similar Posts:

Posted in Policy - National | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment