The Obama administration maintains that its Affordable Care Act is a complex construct that's endangered if the Supreme Court finds its central feature -- the requirement that all Americans buy health insurance -- unconstitutional. It's certainly true that eliminating the "individual mandate" will immediately expose the plan as unworkable. It can only succeed by creating a broad, universal insurance pool that collects big premiums from the young and healthy. If the young and healthy aren't required to sign on, they won't. Hence, the pools won't be remotely large enough to pay for the older, sicker folks who get the best deal, and are bound to flock to the state exchanges.

In reality, the reform plan's success doesn't depend on the Supreme Court's decision at all. Its faulty design virtually guarantees that all the things the administration warns will happen if it loses will happen anyway. Even if it stands, the legislation will spawn insurance plans crowded with high-cost folks, driving premiums higher, hobbling competition as carriers abandon the exchanges, and leaving tens of millions of Americans uninsured.

Yesterday, the House Ways and Means Committee asked the Obama Administration to provide detailed information to the committee on the use of federal tax dollars for significant public relations campaign by HHS. Congressman Charles Boustany (a medical doctor) sent the letter.

A copy of the Ways & Means Committee press release can be found here.

Text of the Ways & Means Committee letter can be found here. 

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC. 

A new article at The Apothecary details how many well-intended (but misguided) government policies have increased health insurance costs. As costs increase, more people drop health insurance or opt-out either because they cannot afford the higher prices or the do a simple cost-benefit analysis and decide that the benefit is no longer worth the cost. In either case, it is government mandates and policies that drive up costs with the end results being fewer people with insurance. ObamaCare repeats many of the failed policies of the past which will make the problems associated with higher cost health insurance even worse. Read the full commentary here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC. 

Rep. Barney Frank has led a parade of Democrats in renouncing the passage of the Affordable Care Act, suggesting the far-reaching law may be a net deficit for the party on Election Day. "I think we paid a terrible price for health care," the Massachusetts Democrat recently told reporters. "I would not have pushed it as hard." He said President Obama should have seen the election of Republican Scott Brown to replace the late Sen. Ted Kennedy as a demand to pivot away from sweeping health reform two years ago.

Other Democrats have echoed Frank: Obamacare cost the president "a lot of credibility as a leader," said Virginia Sen. Jim Webb. Passing Obamacare "wasn't worth" the political cost, added Kentucky Rep. John Yarmuth.

"The climate out there was really ugly because of it," said Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash. Former Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala. says Obamacare "is the single least popular piece of major domestic legislation in the last 70 years." It will be "an albatross" for Democrats in 2012, Davis predicts.

Are there many ways that a state could shield businesses in their state from an onerous, job killing tax penalty? In most cases - no. But in the case of ObamaCare the answer is a definitive "yes!!!"

ObamaCare seeks to have states set up insurance exchanges or government controlled "markets" whereby federal subsidies are dolled out so that people can buy heavily regulated, government approved health insurance. According to this article from The Wall Street Journal, if a state establishes an exchange, ObamaCare allows the subsidies to be given out (see Section 1311). If a state refuses to set up an exchange, the federal government will do so but ObamaCare does not permit any subsidies for people who access the federal exchanges (see Section 1321). 

So, a state that takes a pass on establishing an exchange (as many states have chosen to do) is effectively telling the feds, "we aren't going to spend state tax dollars to do your dirty work - have at it." But here is where a state that decides to take a pass can really benefit that state's economy. Under ObamaCare, if someone receives an exchange subsidy, their employer is subject to a penalty under ObamaCare but if no employees receive a subsidy employers are not subject to the penalty. Get it? The bottom line is that states can protect job creators from onerous federal taxes if they refuse to create and set up an ObamaCare insurance exchange. That is a significant incentive for states to protect their economy and jobs. The alternative is to create an exchange, letting the penalty kick in, resulting in fewer businesses and fewer jobs which will create a double-whammy for state taxpayers. Taxpayer will have to foot the bill to deal with the further strain on a state's social safety net resulting from higher unemployment and would end up footing the bill to finance a system to hand out federal bennies.  A bad deal all around for states, employers, employees and taxpayers.

Read more about this here.

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC

Myth No. 1:  President Obama, “[My plan] slows the growth of Medicare costs by strengthening an independent commission -- a commission not made up of bureaucrats from government or insurance companies, but doctors and nurses and medical experts and consumers, who will look at all the evidence and recommend the best way to reduce unnecessary health care spending while protecting access to the care that the seniors need."

Reality: Actually, the law explicitly requires that the majority of IPAB consist of government bureaucrats and health plans, while limiting the number of board members who are health care providers.

Myth No. 2: President Obama, "Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

Reality: There was hardly a strong majority for passage of ObamaCare. In fact, Democrats held strong majorities in the House and Senate but many Democrats voted against ObamaCare. In the House, the vote for ObamaCare was 220 to 211 (with 33 Democrats voting against) and in the Senate the vote was 56 to 43 with 3 Democrats voting against.

Myth No. 3: President Obama, discussing the House Budget: “It’s a bad idea, and it will ultimately end Medicare as we know it.” 

Reality: This claim has been called "the Lie of the Year for 2011" by PolitiFact.com. The truth is that the House Budget keeps Medicare program in place. The only thing that is certain to actually ‘end Medicare as we know it,’ is the program’s insolvency – a reality still rapidly approaching under the President’s plan.

Here is what the President said:

"Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected Congress. I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we have heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly-constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example and I am pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step." [Emphasis added].

Ignoring the fact that I take issue with the President's characterization of how conservatives would view or define judicial activism (it is creating "rights" by judicial decree, using a judges personal opinion to expand government's power over the citizenry, using the judge's views as a substitute for that of the legislature while simultaneously ignoring the plain reading of the Constitution or statute, and looking to foreign law instead of American law as a basis for ruling on a case), I strongly disagree with the President's characterization of the make-up of the Congress that passed ObamaCare. The President is misleading the American people on this issue - and he knows it.

The President wants to talk about the "unelected" - let's talk!  Before passing the United States Senate, the ObamaCare bill had to clear a "cloture vote" which means 60 Senators would have to vote to "cut off debate" and end the amendment process. On December 23, 2009, the Senate held that vote and, by the absolute slimmest of margins, cloture was invoked. (See Roll Call Vote 395). ObamaCare passed the Senate only after 60 Senators voted to invoke cloture but of those 60 Senators who voted for cloture, FIVE, yes five, were unelected Democratic Senators.

U.S. Senators Dr. Tom Coburn, MD (R-OK) and Dr. John Barrasso, MD (R-WY) have released a new report examining the impact and consequences of ObamaCare Their report titled, “Warning: Side Effects, A Check-Up on the Federal Health Law”, is frightening as the Senator/Doctors details the consequences of this law.

Drs. Coburn and Barrasso report states: “Over the past twenty four months, American families have learned more about the President’s health care law and do not like what they see. Higher insurance premiums. A coming state budget-busting Medicaid expansion. Fewer choices. Less freedom and more government interference. Cuts to Medicare by unelected government bureaucrats. Thousands of pages of regulations. An unconstitutional mandate to buy health insurance. Penalties on employers threatening job creation. Billions of dollars in tax hikes and, once fully implemented, $2.6 trillion in new health care spending.”

Be sure to follow AHEC on Twitter @TheAHEC and at Facebook.com/TheAHEC