by Ali Meyer • Washington Free Beacon
The vast majority of Americans want to change the Affordable Care Act regardless of whether they support the law or want it repealed, according to a poll from Gallup.
Since the election, more Americans, 53 percent, disapprove of Obamacare and 42 percent approve of it.
“Going forward, the vast majority of Americans want to see the law changed,” Gallup says. “This includes the 37% who want it repealed and replaced, along with a total of 43% of Americans who want the law kept, but with major changes.” Continue reading
The EPA announced that it will disregard the current law and rush new mandates into place before Obama leaves office.
In 2012, the Obama Administration pushed through a dramatic increase in Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards — jumping the fleet average mileage mandates to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2015. At the time, it was agreed there would be a mid-term review before 2018 to determine if the new CAFE standards were feasibly possibly in the time frame required. However, now the Obama Administration and the EPA just announced that there will be no midterm review and that intends to impose the 54.5 miles per gallon mandate regardless of the feasibility or impact. Continue reading
Rep. Brady touts tax code built for growth
by Ali Meyer • Washington Free Beacon
Rep. Kevin Brady (R., Texas), the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said Tuesday that his two top priorities for the coming year are tax reform and replacing the Affordable Care Act.
At the Wall Street Journal‘s CEO Council meeting, Brady said President-elect Donald Trump is making economic growth the pillar of his presidency and that these two issues will play key roles.
“We have two overarching goals in tax reform,” Brady said. “We want a tax code not merely designed to wring money from you, which is the one we have today, [but] a tax code actually built for growth, designed to grow wages, jobs, and the U.S. economy.”
“Our other goal is to leapfrog America from dead last among our global competitors back into that lead pack, and keep us there going forward,” he said. Continue reading
Trump should set a goal: fix the business climate so a million Americans a year can start companies.
By Carl J Schramm • Wall Street Journal
This week more than 160 countries are celebrating Global Entrepreneurship Week. The Kauffman Foundation, which I once led, created this event eight years ago to encourage other nations to follow the American tradition of bottom-up economic success. Yet this example has been less powerful in recent years, as American entrepreneurship has waned. Fortunately, President-elect Donald Trump has plenty of options if he wants to resurrect America’s startup economy.
Consider the economic situation that the president-elect is inheriting. Despite the addition of 161,000 jobs in October, the labor-force participation rate fell to its second lowest level in nearly 40 years, according to the St. Louis Federal Reserve. More people have joined the ranks of the chronically unemployed, slipping into poverty at alarming rates as their skills decay and dependency on public assistance grows. Considering population growth, America needs at least 325,000 new jobs every month to stanch the growing numbers of discouraged workers, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Continue reading
By The Hill•
The headlines are awash with stories of huge ObamaCare premium cost increases. Some have even referred to the news as an “October Surprise.” But for those of us who read the bill and knew from the start that the President was lying when he said if you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan and that his plan would save families more than $2,500 a year, these headlines were completely predictable.
But it is a bewilderment that some Republicans are backing a bill that if enacted will insure that future premiums will cost even more. Oddly, the bill is named the Taxpayers Before Insurers Act, but in the end, it harms every American by jacking up their health insurance premiums even higher. Continue reading
Trump’s health care opportunity.
By Michael Astrue • Weekly Standard
Discontent with Obamacare—and with the delivery of health care more broadly—unites most Americans across our other divisions. That discontent creates enormous opportunities and risks for our president-elect.
The new administration would be misguided to start a typical Washington process that brings the usual suspects to town for dull sessions that grind out pablum that no one will digest. On the other hand, they will not inherit a detailed roadmap from congressional Republicans and should not expect that any Health and Human Services (HHS) transition team, no matter how talented and focused, can quickly create a workable plan in isolation. Continue reading
by Daniel J. Mitchell • Foundation for Economic Education
Hillary Clinton has an editorial in the New York Times entitled “My Plan for Helping America’s Poor” and it is so filled with errors and mistakes that it requires a full fisking (i.e., a “point-by-point debunking of lies and/or idiocies”).
We’ll start with her very first sentence.
The true measure of any society is how we take care of our children.
I realize she (or the staffers who actually wrote the column) were probably trying to launch the piece with a fuzzy, feel-good line, but let’s think about what’s implied by “how we take care of our children.” It echoes one of the messages in her vapid 1996 book, It Takes a Village, in that it implies that child rearing somehow is a collective responsibility. Continue reading
by Steven Horwitz • Foundation for Economic Education
Critics of liberalism and the market economy have made a long-standing habit of inventing terms we would never use to describe ourselves. The most common of these is “neo-liberal” or “neo-liberalism,” which appears to mean whatever the critics wish it to mean to describe ideas they don’t like. To the extent the terms have clear definitions, they certainly don’t align with the actual views of defenders of markets and liberal society.
Economists have never used that term to describe their views. Another related term is “trickle-down economics.” People who argue for tax cuts, less government spending, and more freedom for people to produce and trade what they think is valuable are often accused of supporting something called “trickle-down economics.” It’s hard to pin down exactly what that term means, but it seems to be something like the following: “those free market folks believe that if you give tax cuts or subsidies to rich people, the wealth they acquire will (somehow) ‘trickle down’ to the poor.” Continue reading
By Jeffrey I. Barke • The Hill
As ObamaCare’s troubles mount, I’ve heard my patients and my peers in healthcare ask: How could the law’s authors not have seen this coming?
For my part, I think a different question needs to be asked: What if they did? What if ObamaCare was purposely designed to fail?
Every day, it seems like there are a dozen new headlines about the crisis facing ObamaCare. Premiums are rising faster than ever. Meanwhile, health insurance companies are abandoning the law’s exchanges left and right, unable to compete in the top-down, regulation-driven environment created by the law. Less than three years into its implementation, the law has never looked so precarious. Continue reading
by Ali Meyer • Washington Free Beacon
The Obama administration could bail out Obamacare insurers through its risk-corridor program, according to an expert from the Mercatus Center.
The risk-corridor program was designed to constrain risk for health insurers who had uncertainty in pricing premiums for new plans they offered through Obamacare. The program was established and administered in years 2014, 2015, and 2016 and transferred funds from profitable insurers to insurers with losses.
In 2014, the risk-corridor program experienced a shortfall of more than $2.5 billion. Poorly performing insurers requested $2.87 billion in that year, while profitable insurers could only make up about $362 million, leaving a deficit of about $2.5 billion. Continue reading
by Ali Meyer • Washington Free Beacon
Obamacare enrollees had trouble affording and accessing health care as well as understanding how to use their plans, according to a report from the Government Accountability Office.
The top factors that Obamacare enrollees considered when selecting a plan in 2015 were the cost of premiums, deductibles, and copayments.
The auditors talked to stakeholders including policy experts, state departments of insurance, and exchange officials, and found that some Obamacare enrollees said the out-of-pocket expenses were too expensive before reaching their deductible. Continue reading
Instead of attempting an outright repeal of Obamacare, some in Congress are abdicating conservative principles and throwing the private sector under the bus in a reckless effort to kill the ACA.
The tool of choice in this instance is the so-called “transitional reinsurance” program (“reinsurance”) established by Section 1341 of Obamacare. It was designed as a temporary program to spread out the financial risk associated with providing health insurance to sicker patients in the individual market and exchanges.
Under its terms, health insurers, not the government, were required to pay into a fund that was to be distributed to those insurance plans that had risky patients with medical claims above a certain level.
Now that we’re approaching the end of this temporary program, in place from 2014-2016, some in Congress want to steal the money in this program (in order to precipitate a collapse in the overall ACA program) and instead give it to the U.S. Treasury – but for what? It’ll just be more federal largesse to spent by Obama and big spenders in Congress. Continue reading
New Hampshire residents will have even fewer choices for health insurance next year as Community Health Options announced last week that it is dumping the Granite State to concentrate on its core business in Maine.
One insurance company after another has decided that it can’t operate under the Affordable Care Act, especially after Congress shut down the “risk corridors” they had hoped to use to defray losses.
The entire Obamacare scheme was set up on faulty premises. You can’t force people to buy health insurance they don’t want, subsidize mediocre insurance plans people can’t afford, and still claim to hold down rising medical expenses. Continue reading
Returning to a system of taxation without representation where a European power taxes Americans is unacceptable.
The European Union (EU) has ruled that Apple, one of the world’s top technology companies, must pay $14.5 billion in taxes to Ireland, despite the fact that Ireland has determined that Apple has paid all the taxes it owes.
You read that right.
The nation of Ireland has reviewed Apple’s tax filings and has determined that Apple has paid 100% of the taxes it owes under Ireland’s tax code. But the EU has stepped-in and said that Ireland doesn’t understand its own tax laws, that Ireland’s review of Apple’s taxes is incorrect, and that only EU bureaucrats in Brussels can understand Irish tax law and Apple’s tax filings.
Tim Cook, Apple’s CEO, described this EU ruling as “total political crap.” Tim Cook is quite frankly being very kind in his characterization. The truth is — this is far worse than that. Aside from the hubris of a bunch of pointy headed bureaucrats in Brussels telling Irish tax authorities that they don’t understand their own tax code, this is actually an attempt to legalize grand theft robbery. At the very least, the EU is now officially in the shakedown racket.
No wonder Brexit was a success! What sane individual would want to belong to this group of lawless gangsters pretending to be an overarching cooperative governmental entity?
Some Americans might privately say that while this is unfortunate for Apple, it isn’t my problem. But the truth is — this is our problem because the EU is effectively reaching into your pocket to grab this taxes.
You might think that Apple will pay this taxes, not you. But this overlooks the fact that if Apple is forced to pay extra taxes by the EU, it can legally and properly record that paid taxes elsewhere on its US tax returns — because no business is required to pay taxes on its profits multiple times. Once is enough. So in the end, the EU is actually reaching into our pockets and taking money from us.
As U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said yesterday, “I have been concerned that [the EU’s decision] reflected an attempt to reach into the U.S. tax base to tax income that ought to be taxed in the United States.” Secretary Lew is being very diplomatic. The more frank way of saying that is the EU is trying to steal from US taxpayers.
Here is the truth — the EU sees a successful American company and wants to reach into its bank account. It isn’t a lot different than when a thief spots a businessman in a nice suit and targets him for a mugging. The EU’s avarice knows no bounds and so it will use any pretext — even claiming that Ireland does not understand its own tax law — to impose additional taxes. In the process, the EU in effect robs Americans of $14.5 billion.
If this stands, the EU will be reaching into American pocketbooks and wallets every year in greater and greater amounts to pay for their excesses and their failed top-heavy, oppressive regulatory regime model of government. This is precisely why Brexit was a success despite the lies used to defeat it. If Europeans like this system, they can have it. But we must stop them from forcing Americans to fund their choices.
American leaders need to stand up and be crystal clear that this will not stand. This is not Apple’s problem. It is our problem. The EU has found a way to make Americans foot the bill for the EU’s extravagant waste. We must put a stop to this now. There can be no compromise. This is an act of bare and raw criminality and theft hidden behind fancy European accents and official EU letterhead. But if it is allowed to stand, soon Americans will be heavily taxed by foreign powers simply because we allowed it to happen.
Being taxed by a European power across the Atlantic with whom we have no representation takes us backward to before 1776. Let’s not sit by and let that happen.