Author: jimmy

   From its very inception, this major measure contained overwhelming flaws that virtually guaranteed ongoing controversy, and the strong possibility of being overturned either legislatively by a concerned Congress or by a Supreme Court decision ruling that key portions were unconstitutional.

   The original $940 billion estimated cost of this dramatic and broad new law was always overwhelming.  However, it has become clear that the measure will actually be far more expensive.  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that $1.76 trillion is the latest reliable figure, and that sum is sure to rise.  House Ways and Means  Committee Chair Dave Camp  was quoted in the Washington Times as estimating the actual cost as over $2 trillion.  The price tag issue in and of itself may eventually doom it.

   There are three extraordinary problems beyond the devastating cost, and they appear to be coming to the forefront this month. The first is Congressional anger over the “death panel,” the name wary Americans have given to the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) established by Section 3403 the PPAHCA.  The second is the serious constitutional objections over the bill’s requirement that Americans buy health insurance, known as the Individual Mandate.  Finally, there is the controversy that Health & Human Services Secretary Sebelius prompted when she issued regulations requiring religious institutions, along with all other employers, to provide coverage for services such as abortion that those organizations consider morally objectionable.

   Related to the IPAB’s cost-saving mission is the question of its effect on research of  new treatments.  Innovative techniques are expensive to develop.  Many question whether this new agency will have a chilling effect on research organizations that may see their innovations deemed to be too expensive.

   This week, the House of Representatives is debating a measure that would repeal the IPAB, largely based on public distaste for its unchecked power and “death panel” authority.  From the initial release of information about this bizarre institution, the majority of Americans expressed substantial discomfort with its concept. The IPAB is designed to have a 15 member panel tasked with achieving Medicare savings.  David Catron writes that the IPAB’s “sole purpose is to cut funding for some health care services seniors now take for granted.  And those cuts will kill people.”  Pollster and political expert Doug Schoen has stated that the IPAB is “flawed, unethical and represents the worst of health care policy reform.”  Due to the IPAB’s regulations, senior citizens are almost guaranteed to have a more difficult time finding a doctor who will treat them.

   From March 26 to March 28, the United States Supreme Court will hear an extraordinary six hours of oral argument on the issue of the Individual Mandate’s constitutionality.

   The PPAHCA’s Individual Mandate forces individuals to secure health insurance. Supporters of the law assert that this is the only way to fund the whole idea.  The Obama Administration has signaled its unease with its legal position by changing its argument that the Individual Mandate is justified under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause to one that asserts it can do so under the “Necessary and Proper” provision of the Constitution. The president’s unease is certainly warranted. The 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta has already ruled this measure unconstitutional.

   A California State Library Background Report noted that political opposition to the concept comes from both the left and the right.  Conservatives dislike the increased power and the lack of Constitutional authority;  leftists “are skeptical…especially as it is supported by the insurance industry.’

   While debate in Congress and before the Supreme Court take place, religious institutions, spearheaded by the Catholic Church, will continue their vigorous defense of their first amendment right to practice their faith free from unlawful federal interference.

   The regulations forcing Catholic institutions to cover abortions may also find their way into the Supreme Court, and there is a substantial chance that this unprecedented intrusion into the affairs of a religion will also be found unconstitutional.  The Catholics aren’t alone in their challenge.  An IBD editorial noted that two protestant colleges are filing suit in the U.S. District Court to challenge the imposition on their First Amendment rights, not on their opposition to abortion.

   Indeed, there is much to question about the reason this law was originally passed and what the expected results would be. It imposes a heavy financial burden on already beleaguered federal and state governments, and fails to provide improved or universal coverage. In fact, according to Forbes Magazine, Senator Mike Enzi (R-Wy) estimates that four million people will lose job-related health insurance.  Last year, health costs rose 9% for employers, notes the article, “triple the rate of the year before ObamaCare’s provisions began to be implemented.” It surrenders vital decision making power to unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.

Practical concepts, such as tort reform, which would sharply reduce the expenses of doctors and hospitals, reducing federal bureaucracy, allowing innovative treatments to get to market more efficiently, and interstate sales of insurance policies which would increase competition and lower policy rates, were ignored.  It is difficult not to conclude that the real goal of the legislation was to give the executive branch of the federal government vast new powers over the one-sixth of the American economy represented by the health industry.