Opinion
              FILE - In this June 7, 2013 file photo, President Barack Obama gestures during a statement about the Affordable Care Act, Friday, in San Jose, Calif. Nothing’s ever easy with President Barack Obama’s health care law. The latest hitch gives employers an additional year before they must offer medical coverage to their workers or pay a fine. What does the delay mean for workers? And struggling businesses? And is it a significant setback for a law already beset by court challenges, repeal votes and a rush of deadlines for making health insurance available to nearly all Americans next year?  (AP Photo/Evan Vucci, File)

Five reasons to pull the plug on Obamacare

Photo of Gayle Trotter
Gayle Trotter
Lawyer

In advocating for the monstrously long and complex statute known as Obamacare, Nancy Pelosi infamously claimed that “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.”

Congress did pass it — just barely — and yet we still don’t know exactly what’s in it. But we have seen enough to know it’s a big steaming pile of statute, a hot mess of legislative logorrhea.

Just as observers took in the news last week that the Obama administration unilaterally delayed implementation of Obamacare’s employer mandate, the administration’s next move sidestepped the verification requirements of the same controversial law.

That law — which Congress passed through tricky maneuvers, backroom dealing and questionable procedures — imperils our health and jeopardizes the functioning of one-sixth of our economy.

Now, in clean-up mode, the administration’s strategy must be to sign up as many people for government-mandated health insurance as possible, send the bill to the taxpayers in contravention of the law and declare the patient cured.

By fiat, the administration delayed the employer insurance mandate, required by law to go into effect on January 1, 2014. The employer mandate penalizes — or taxes — certain employers who do not provide health insurance to their employees.

Despite delaying the employer mandate, the federal government will rely on self-reporting for anyone who wants to qualify for taxpayer-funded subsidies. In other words: “For free money from the government, please sign here.”

This latest move demonstrates five important points about U.S. healthcare policy:

1. In deciding to delay the implementation of the law, Obama has yet again demonstrated that he is running an imperial presidency. “I am not a dictator,” he insisted. But Congress, as the legislative branch, passes the laws, and the president, as the executive, is supposed to enforce the laws.

In trying to prop up Obamacare, the administration has repeatedly manipulated its powers and exceeded its authority. How many times has this happened? The Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon has a partial tally: providing special coverage to members of Congress and their staff against the law; issuing waivers to select companies and unions to avoid backlash from rising premiums; permitting the IRS to ignore the law and implement $1 trillion in credits, subsidies and taxes in states rejecting federally imposed exchanges; coercing unwilling states into implementing expanded Medicaid programs despite a Supreme Court ruling rejecting the legal basis for that coercion; misallocating funds from Congress for one purpose and instead using the funds to implement Obamacare while squeezing companies regulated by HHS to cough up additional funds for implementation; delaying the employer mandate; and suspending the verification requirements for qualification for individual subsidies.

2. Employers should not serve as the conduit for universal health care. Employers began to provide health insurance coverage as a result of a World War II wage and price controls, and the government did not tax employees for employer-provided health insurance coverage. Employers have a vested interest in the health of their employees, but by giving employer-provided health insurance favorable tax treatment, the government distorted the market for health insurance coverage. It placed a third party (and sometimes a fourth party) between the doctor and the patient, creating inefficiencies, worse service and administrative headaches for doctors and patients alike. It unduly tied employees to their employers. And it tended to discourage would-be entrepreneurs from striking off on their own.