News Story

Flashback: The Health Care Bill Is Full of Stocking Stuffers

The following is a reprint of an article originally published on Dec. 23, 2009. In the nights before Christmas in 2009, the Obamacare health care bill was beginning to work its way through Congress. This is a look back at that process. 

It must be Christmas with all the presents floating around.

The health care bill just cleared its first hurdle through the Senate and the amount of special favors and outright bribes for powerful senators and swing states is (expectedly) outrageous. 

The most egregious are as follows:

  • The "Cornhusker Kickback" - For Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., "a provision exempting his state from paying the usual share of costs for new Medicaid patients." The deal is expected to cost taxpayers $100 million over 10 years.
  • From Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., - a $100 million provision "anonymously" stuck into the package, money that Dodd wants to go to the University of Connecticut's medical center. According to the AP, at first Dodd didn't want to claim credit for that one, but he eventually confessed. Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a spending watchdog group, estimates that Dodd has secured 92 earmarks worth at least $121 million for Connecticut. "Not bad for a senator who isn't even on the Appropriations Committee," Ellis added.
  • Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., - won language in the bill that could give North Dakota an additional $650 million in Medicaid reimbursements over the next decade.

From our own state of Michigan,

  • Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., - won an exemption for nonprofit insurers (read, "Blue Cross Blue Shield," which controls 70 percent of Michigan's health insurance market) from a big excise tax.
  • Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., - helped tighten language that would allow Michigan hospitals to receive higher Medicare payments along with Connecticut. The cost?  About $21 million.

"Once people see a leader willing to take these kinds of deals, people have a tendency to withhold their votes until they get a similar deal. ... If you hold out, you, too, can be Ben Nelson, perhaps," said Diana Evans, a Trinity College political science professor.

Even a Democrat has criticized the process. Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., who did not get a special carve-out for Colorado in the bill, took to the floor Monday to reject such deal making. "Only in Washington would someone be attacked for not negotiating a backroom deal," Bennet said. "Just because others choose to engage in the same tired Washington rituals doesn't mean that I have to."

With all of the massive spending bills passed this year, it should be no surprise that lobbyists are on pace for a record year, poised to shatter last year's record of $3.3 billion spent; and this despite a president who promised to crack down on political favoritism.

But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., defended the process.

"There are 100 senators here, and I don't know that there's a senator that doesn't have something in this bill that isn't important to them," Reid said. "If they don't have something in it important to them then it doesn't speak well of them."

He compared the bill to the Defense Department appropriations bill, which passed Saturday and is another piece of legislation thick with pork, earmarks and other provisions benefitting individual members and private corporations.

"That's what legislation's all about," Reid said. "It's the art of compromise. In this great country of ours, Nevada has many different problems than does New Hampshire. Michigan has many different problems than does Georgia."

Actually, those states and the other 46 all have the same problem; an intrusive federal government cherry picking taxpayer dollars to hand out in order to curry support for bad legislation. Our elected leaders would have us believe the government is like Santa Clause; able to hand out presents and favors with no real finite cost. But just like Old Saint Nick, this is a false illusion.

Michigan Capitol Confidential is the news source produced by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Michigan Capitol Confidential reports with a free-market news perspective.

News Story

Rejecting Obamacare: Why the Legislature Defunded the State Health Exchange

In an end of the year analysis of Michigan Governor Rick Snyder, the Associated Press states that one of the political “misses” of Snyder’s first year was he “failed to get the GOP-led House to approve spending federal dollars to develop a state health exchange where individuals and small businesses could shop for health insurance.”

Although the AP considers it a failure for the Snyder Administration, many limited-government proponents believe that it is a good thing the exchange was not created.

Health care exchanges are health care plans regulated by a state where residents can purchase health insurance.

Jack McHugh, legislative analyst for the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, said the federal government can create the health care exchanges if states fail to do so. The exchanges are the instruments for which Obamacare’s subsidies will be distributed, McHugh said.

“Governors and state legislators have a duty to push back against his infringement of Federalism,” McHugh said. “States have a duty to push back when the Feds overreach, it is more than a political statement. It is a constitutional statement. They are saying, ‘Feds – you went too far. And we aren’t going to roll over and just take it.’ ”

Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute laid out why states should not implement health care exchanges in Sept. 15 testimony to the Missouri State Senate.

The state would have enormous responsibilities in being a watchdog over the health insurance carriers and running a “reinsurance program” and a “risk-adjustment” program, Cannon said. “The states don’t have the time to take on all the responsibilities involved in creating the exchange."

Cannon argues that states don’t have the money to spend on new bureaucracies.

“Every dollar that Missouri spends on an exchange is a dollar it cannot spend on roads, education, or police — or more important, a missed opportunity to spur economic recovery by reducing the tax burden,” Cannon told the committee.

He also said it made little sense to create a new government bureaucracy for a law that could soon be repealed. The United States Supreme Court has stated it will rule on the constitutionality of Obamacare.

Cannon believes that state officials who set up health care exchanges are setting themselves up to take the blame when Obamacare fails.

Michigan Capitol Confidential is the news source produced by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Michigan Capitol Confidential reports with a free-market news perspective.