ObamaCare Is Unsustainable as Exchanges Will Eventually Devolve into a Death Spiral
Ruling Also a Blow to the Rule of Law
Washington, D.C. – The Supreme Court’s ruling in King v. Burwell means Americans will have to wait longer for greater liberty in their health care system, said Dr. David Hogberg, senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research.
“The Court has had two chances to stand up for freedom and against ObamaCare and has blown them both,” Dr. Hogberg said. “This won’t change the fight for health care freedom. It will just take more time to move toward a free-market based health care system.”
A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would have been a great opportunity to start replacing ObamaCare with free-market based policies. Rather, Americans will have to suffer the problems of ObamaCare for the foreseeable future.
Dr. Hogberg notes that the ObamaCare exchanges are already exhibiting signs of a death spiral, where insurance premiums rise precipitously, causing young and healthy people to drop their insurance. This renders the “risk pool” older and sicker, causing premiums to rise again, and the process repeats.
“We’re seeing loads of insurers ask for big premium hikes, at least 20% and in many cases much higher,” said Dr. Hogberg. He recently examined this in a National Policy Analysis entitled “ObamaCare Premium Hikes for 2016–Ignore Them at Your Own Risk.”
“In the end, the exchanges are not sustainable, and free-market based reform of our health care system will be necessary. Today’s Court ruling only delays that,” said Dr. Hogberg.
In the longer term, Congress must adopt policies that repeal ObamaCare and replace it with policies that promote liberty. NCPPR provides an easy-to-access spreadsheet at http://goo.gl/y1ALI2 that summarizes a dozen plans from conservative and libertarian think-tanks and Congressional Republicans offering free-market alternatives to ObamaCare. The spreadsheet explains how each plan treats vital health care policy issues such as tax credits, pre-existing conditions, Medicaid and Health Savings Accounts.
“There are a lot of great ideas out there, from the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute to Rep. Tom Price and the Republican Study Committee,” said Dr. Hogberg. “Unfortunately, most of the media has ignored them, so most Americans are unaware that free-market alternatives to ObamaCare exist.”
While the ruling isn’t a fatal blow to achieving health care freedom, it is a serious blow to the rule of law.
“From here on out, presidents and the bureaucracy can apply the law however they like, even if the law says differently,” said Dr. Hogberg. “As long as they can plausibly claim that Congress intended for the law to say something different, presidents and the bureaucracy will win every time before the Supreme Court.”
David Hogberg is a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research. He is author of the forthcoming book Medicare’s Victims: How the U.S. Government’s Largest Health Care Program Harms Patients and Impairs Physicians.
The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors. Sign up for free issue alerts here.
For Immediate Release: June 25, 2015
Contact: Judy Kent at (703) 759 7476 or email@example.com or Amy Ridenour at (202) 543-4110 or firstname.lastname@example.org
Washington, D.C. — Legal and policy experts with the Project 21 black leadership network are available for comment on today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision that allows perceived group racial disparities to be used as a trigger for enforcement of the Fair Housing Act.
“When those statistical differences alone are used as proof of discrimination, freedom and liberty are lost; but worse the constitutional protections provided to every American as an individual are lost too,” said Project 21 co-chairman Horace Cooper, a legal commentator who taught constitutional law at George Mason University and is a former leadership staff member for the U.S. House of Representatives.
“It’s a shame that the majority of justices are willing to allow allegations of discrimination in housing to be painted using a broad brush — sometimes by those who may not even be among the aggrieved — rather than finding and cutting out true instances of abuse with scalpel-like precision,” said Archbishop Council Nedd II, Ph.D., author of multiple books and rector of St. Alban’s Anglican Church in Pine Grove Mills, PA. “The Fair Housing Act was meant to be a scalpel, but the Court has now decided otherwise to our peril. Society is served better by a system that removes specific problems rather than pitting groups against each other.”
On appeal from the federal Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the case of Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, et al. v. The Inclusive Communities Project, Inc, addressed a festering legal problem regarding the Fair Housing Act’s use to address accusations of disparate racial impact instead of enforcing the law on a case-by-case, as-needed basis as was argued by its supporters when it was debated in Congress.
Specific to this case, the Inclusive Communities Project (ICP) claimed the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs, a state agency, violated the federal Fair Housing Act by allocating housing tax credits to developers in a manner that they alleged broadly kept minorities in low-income minority-majority neighborhoods rather than allowing access to housing opportunities in wealthier majority-white communities in the Dallas metropolitan area. ICP charged the department’s tax credit distribution policy creates a disparate impact on black recipients of such credits as a class rather than addressing individual instances of alleged abuse.
Project 21 joined a legal brief submitted to the Court that asked the justices to specifically define the legal scope of the Fair Housing Act. In the brief, it was argued that the Act was written “to apply solely to disparate treatment, not acts having disparate impact on protected classes” and that the U.S. Supreme Court must “consider the threshold question of whether disparate impact claims are even cognizable under the Fair Housing Act” since “disparate impact claims do not depend on the intent of the action or policy.”
This legal brief joined by Project 21 was written and submitted to the Court by the Pacific Legal Foundation and was also joined by the Center for Equal Opportunity, Competitive Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute, Individual Rights Foundation and Reason Foundation.
In 2014 and 2015, Project 21 members have already been interviewed or cited by the media over 2,600 times — including TVOne, the Philadelphia Inquirer, Fox News Channel, Westwood One, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, SiriusXM satellite radio and 50,000-watt talk radio stations such as KOA-Denver, WHO-Des Moines, WJR-Detroit, WBZ-Boston and KDKA-Pittsburgh — on issues that include civil rights, entitlement programs, the economy, race preferences, education and corporate social responsibility. Project 21 has participated in cases before the U.S. Supreme Court regarding race preferences and voting rights and defended voter ID laws at the United Nations. Its volunteer members come from all walks of life and are not salaried political professionals.
Project 21, a leading voice of black conservatives for over two decades, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research (http://www.nationalcenter.org).
— 30 —
Following is Bishop Council Nedd’s Introduction of Presidential Candidate, Sen. Rand Paul
As many of you know, Ascension Day was just this past Thursday and Yesterday was Ascension Sunday. The apostles’ reactions immediately prior to the Ascension tell a significant story. They illustrate with crystal clarity the stubbornness with which we subordinate God’s agenda to our own, and we do this without actually realizing it. In the same way that there was a disconnect between what Christ said and what the Apostles heard… there is a similar disconnect between what our Founding Father intended and how we are interpreting it almost 250 years later.
Christ was focused on servant leadership… While those around him were interested merely in accumulating power.
Shortly you will hear from another great servant leader.
Senator Rand Paul has been a leader since arriving in Washington. He is not a career politician. He is a citizen legislator and surgeon who demonstrates servant leadership regularly when he uses his very little free time to perform free surgical procedures for those in need.
Our nation is at a crossroads.
Will we continue on the path to an ever bigger and more intrusive government?
…Will we make a U turn and finally begin to restore this nation?
We the people are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. However, that has been warped over the centuries. Governments have no rights. People have rights. Governments have responsibilities that are delegated to them by the people.
Rand Paul will fight to protect the constitution. He will fight to protect the American people. He’s not afraid to speak his mind and we’ll see that demonstrated in the next few days as Washington debates the Patriot Act.
The status quo is not tenable. We have been fooling ourselves too long. As was said right here in this very city in 1776. What we are doing right now is a lot like calling an ox a bull. He is thankful for the distinction, but would much rather have restored what is rightfully his.
Senator Paul can restore this nation to some semblance of what our founders intended, and to what God has blessed for so long.
“No, I don’t think so. I’m pretty sure he’s not too thrilled with us though!” Mark Forrest– from Tarpon Springs, Florida
“I don’t think they do but morals and values are lacking in many but just by choice of denying the truth and God’s existence.” Elizabeth Hinga Mwangi — an educator from Kahawa, Nairobi, Kenya
“No. Too many don’t understand God. He is not vengeful, not close minded, not mean. He-she-it loves us all. No matter what! If America hates God it’s because of the crazy evangelists that use His name to push their agenda. It turns off so many people!” Beth Sawyer Egan — a retired musician living in Union Springs, Alabama
“America doesn’t hate God. But I hate people who use God to advance political agendas that are antithetical to the supposed teachings upon which their religion is based. I am just a man. I don’t pretend to know the answers to the profound questions of creation etc. and I am suspicious of those who claim to. Hate God? No. Hate exclusionary group think that holds one group of acolytes better than another (or themselves right and all others wrong)? Most definitely.” Danny Ingram — a Washington, DC music legend
“I’m an American, and I don’t hate God. I continue to be amazed by those who claim to be God’s followers while presuming to impose their narrow limits on God’s love and mercy for us.” Nancy Kane Maginn — friends with Dany Ingram