Meet the masterminds who will decide what kind of health care you and your family will receive

The Wall Street Journal (via AEI) has the uncomfortable low-down on what Obamacare means:

Meet the Obamacare mandate committee

Think the contraception decision was bad? Wait until bureaucrats start telling your insurer which cancer screenings to cover

Offended by President Obama's decision to force health insurers to pay for contraception and surgical sterilization? It gets worse: In the future, thanks to ObamaCare, the government will issue such health edicts on a routine basis—and largely insulated from public view. This goes beyond contraception to cancer screenings, the use of common drugs like aspirin, and much more.

Under ObamaCare, a single committee—the United States Preventative Services Task Force—is empowered to evaluate preventive health services and decide which will be covered by health-insurance plans.

The task force already rates services with letter grades of "A" through "D" (or "I," if it has "insufficient evidence" to make a rating). But under ObamaCare, services rated "A" or "B"—such as colon cancer screening for adults aged 50-75—must be covered by health plans in full, without any co-pays. Many services that get "Cs" and "Ds"—such as screening for ovarian or testicular cancer—could get nixed from coverage entirely...

...Americans first became familiar with the task force in November 2009, when it made the controversial decision to recommend that women ages 40-49 shouldn't get routine mammograms. More recently, it rebuffed routine prostate-cancer screening and the use of tests that detect the viruses that can cause cervical cancer.

...The task force is a part-time board of volunteer advisers that works slowly and is often late to incorporate new science into its recommendations. Only in 2009 did it finally recommend aspirin for the prevention of stroke and heart attack among those at risk—decades after this practice was demonstrated to save lives and had become part of standard medical practice.

The article's author recommends several common-sense measures:

• Congress should make the task force "subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which would at least require it to hold its deliberations in public."

• And Congress should likewise "let private health plans—and their members—decide on their own how preventive tests and treatments should be covered."

All of this is a brutal wake-up call for Americans: Obama's contraception mandate isn't an anomaly. It's the sign of things to come.


Hat tip: BadBlue.

Could someone wake up John Boehner? Because it's long past time to impeach Kathleen Sebelius

The peerless Mark Levin made the point last night. If the House of Representatives had real leadership, it would already be drafting articles of impeachment for HHS Chief Kathleen Sebelius.

...the Obama administration has reversed itself on whether it has enough money to create federal Exchanges in states that decline to create them. The administration has repeatedly claimed that the $1 billion ObamaCare appropriates would cover the federal government’s costs of implementing the law. And yet the president’s new budget proposal requests “another $1 billion” to cover what Sebelius calls “the one-time cost to build the infrastructure, the enrollment piece of [the federal exchange], the IT system that’s needed.”...

In other words... the Obama administration does not have the money it needs to create federal Exchanges. Therefore, if states don’t create them, ObamaCare grinds to a halt. (Oh, and this billion dollars is the last billion the administration will request. Honest.)

Most important, however, is this:

Even if Congress does not grant the president’s request for more health reform funding, Sebelius said her department will find a solution. “We are going to get it done, yes,” she said.

An HHS staffer prevented the reporter from asking Sebelius what she had in mind... This is a remarkable statement. Sebelius basically just copped to a double-subversion of the Constitution: Congress appropriates money for X, but not Y. Sebelius says, “I know better than Congress. I’m going to take money away from X to fund Y.” Sebelius has already shown contempt for the First Amendment, first by threatening insurance carriers with bankruptcy for engaging in non-fraudulent speech, and again by crafting a contraceptives mandate that violates religious freedom. Now, she has decided the whole separation of powers thing is for little people. What will Sebelius do the next time something gets in the way of her implementing ObamaCare?

We know what she'll do. She'll spit on the Constitution.

Could someone tell me what the hell John Boehner is doing as Speaker? The president is violating the Constitution left and right as he bankrupts America. His attorney general is, in the estimation of some law enforcement officials, perjuring himself in the process of orchestrating a massive cover-up of an illegal gun-running operation. And his HHS Secretary has basically laid a dukie on the House Speaker's head.

Which is the term Boehner prefers, I hear.

John Boehner needs to go. He's about as useful as you-know-whats on a bull. Which really overstates his usefulness.

Highlights: the Cato Institute Eviscerates Obamacare's Individual Mandate

Among many Amici Curiae ("Friend of the Court") briefs filed during the Obamacare fight, the Cato Institute's (PDF) is among the most interesting and powerful. Its highlights are well worth reading.

Question Presented

Can a limited government to whom a free people have delegated only certain enumerated powers commandeer that people into purchasing a product from a private business pursuant to its power to pass laws “necessary and proper for carrying into execution” the authority to “regulate Commerce . . . among the several States”?

Summary of Argument

The individual mandate exceeds Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce under existing doctrine. The outermost bounds of this Court’s Commerce Clause jurisprudence—the “substantial effects” doctrine—stop Congress from reaching intrastate non-economic activity regardless of its effect on the economy. Nor can Congress compel someone to engage in commerce, even if it purports to do so as part of a broader regulatory scheme.

The Constitution does not permit Congress to conscript citizens into economic transactions to remedy the admitted shortcomings—which the government usually terms “necessities”—of a hastily assembled piece of legislation...

...Although the Necessary and Proper Clause allows Congress to execute its regulatory authority over interstate commerce, it is not a blank check permitting Congress to ignore constitutional limits by manufacturing necessities and commandeering citizens to do its bidding... The individual health insurance mandate is not constitutionally warranted simply because it is “necessary” to make other legislation function properly. Indeed, any law “necessary” or otherwise—that purports to compel otherwise inactive citizens to engage in economic activity is unconstitutional.

While the government emphasizes the “uniqueness” of the healthcare market and the wisdom of the legislation, “this case is not about whether the Act is wise or unwise…in fact, it is not really about our healthcare system at all. It is principally about our federalist system, and it raises very important issues regarding the Constitutional role of the federal government.

...Moreover, what Congress is trying to do here is literally unprecedented, as recognized even by the lower courts that ruled for the government. “Congress has never exercised its commerce power in this way, and nothing suggests that this tradition reflects 200 years of self-restraint.” ... “The Government concedes the novelty of the mandate and the lack of any doctrinal limiting principles.”

The Congressional Budget Office agrees: “The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States." Nor has Congress ever before imposed on everyone a civil penalty for declining to participate in the market. And never before have courts had to consider such a breathtaking assertion of power under the Commerce Clause. Even in Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), the federal government claimed “merely” the power to regulate what farmers grew, not to mandate that people become farmers, much less to force people to purchase farm products. Even if not purchasing health insurance is considered an “economic activity”—which of course would mean that every aspect of human life is economic activity—there is no constitutional warrant for Congress to force Americans to enter the marketplace to buy a particular good or service...

...The explicit purpose of Article I is to grant Congress certain enumerated powers and then strictly limit them. James Madison, the architect of our system of government, famously observed that “[i]n framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”

...Thus, Article I gives Congress only certain legislative powers “herein granted,” Articles II and III check those powers, and the Tenth Amendment emphasizes that all other powers remain with those who breathed life into the new government in the first place: the sovereign “people of the United States.” The Framers believed that limiting federal power, and reserving the “residual” power in the hands of the states and the people would help “ensure protection of our fundamental liberties” and “reduce the risk of tyranny and abuse.”

...Given the Framers’ clear intent to establish a limited government of enumerated powers, it is unsurprising that this Court has consistently reaffirmed that the federal government does not enjoy a general police power. ... The Court should not now break with this well established and foundational American principle.

It is both telling and tragic that our hopes for individual sovereignty in this country now rest in the hands of one or two individuals on the Supreme Court.

And if Obama is reelected, he will likely have the chance to further stuff the court with doctrinaire radicals like Elena Kagan. And this Republic would be doomed.

'Progressives' Believe Strongly in the Separation of Church and State. Except, Of Course, When It Comes to Abortion.

If the ramifications weren't so diabolical, the hypocrisy exhibited by Democrats would be laughable.

It has not even been two years since Obamacare was enacted, and already the President’s health care law has taken another victim — the religious freedoms Americans hold dear, as reflected by the First Amendment.

The Obama Administration recently reaffirmed a rule under Obamacare that requires many religious employers to provide health care coverage for all FDA-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and related education and counseling. On the grounds that certain FDA-approved contraceptive methods can sometimes “cause the demise of embryos both after and before uterine implantation,” many groups also believe that the rule forces them to cover abortion.

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops is calling the contraception mandate an “unprecedented” attack on religious freedom. And in statement after statement issued in diocese after diocese, many bishops are publicly declaring that they “cannot” and “will not” comply with “this unjust law.” As Cleveland Bishop Richard Lennon explained, “Unless this rule is overturned, Catholics will be compelled either to violate our consciences or to drop health care coverage for our employees.”

It’s not just Catholics affected by the rule, however. Leaders from other faith traditions have expressed their concern, and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty has already filed a lawsuit on behalf of an interdenominational Christian college that objects to providing abortion and related education and counseling in its health care insurance. “The mandate is un-American, unprecedented, and flagrantly unconstitutional,” says an attorney for the college.

As shocking as the Obama Administration’s action is, it should not come as a surprise. Heritage experts explained years ago that freedom of conscience in health care is closely linked to greater personal freedom over health care decisions. Health care expert James Capretta says that “it was inevitable — only a matter of time,” now that the government is calling the shots and making health care choices for the American people. “Just the sight of Catholic leaders’ being forced to go begging before federal officials ought to be enough to convince most Americans that handing over so much power over such sensitive matters to the federal government was a terrible, terrible mistake,” he writes.

Pathetic Democrat dupes like Bart Stupak and Steve Driehaus hardest hit.

The leaders of the Catholic Church could begin their fight by excommunicating Nancy Pelosi, Kathleen Sebelius, and any other Catholic members of the Democrat Party who support this outrage.

Genius: Starting in 2014, Obamacare begins taxing... itself.

Gee, it's so surprising that we keep uncovering time-bombs buried inside a 2,200-page bill that no one read.

Under the health care overhaul, the federal government will begin taxing itself and the states beginning in 2014... And that’s giving state Medicaid directors heartburn.

The law calls for a new tax on health insurers’ premium revenue — intended to help pay for expansion of coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans. But the tax will be paid by all insurers, including those that contract with states to provide coverage to recipients of Medicaid, the state-federal health insurance program for the poor. Under federal law, that fee must be paid by the Medicaid program, meaning that state and federal governments must pick up the tab.

A report released today by the actuarial firm Milliman Inc. said the tax will cost the Medicaid program between $36.5 billion and $41.9 billion over 10 years. At least $13 billion will be borne by states, and at least $23.5 billion by the federal government, based on the state-federal Medicaid matching formula, according to the report paid for by the Medicaid Health Plans of America, which represents private health plans that cover people on Medicaid. According to the America’s Health Insurance plans, the tax overall would generate at least $73 billion from 2014-2019.

“This is not an issue on most people’s radar screens, but this is going to be a big problem,” said Matt Salo, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors. “This policy never really made sense … I get the point of an insurance tax, but when you are just passing on those costs to Medicaid, that makes no sense.”

With delightful surprises like this built into the Democrats' destructive health care bill, it's no wonder that Obama's advisers are predicting the death of America's health insurance companies. Which should do wonders for unemployment.