Advocate Nick Zaiac was published in The PanAmerican Post making a moral case against the Affordable Care Act
Even government programs that come at “no cost” to the individual are not free. Beyond time and effort, there is the lack of choice to consider, as well as other distortions. When governments attempt to give things away “for free” — or at a highly subsidized rate — problems will inevitably arise.
You can read the entire piece here.
If you’d like to book Nick or any other Advocate, please contact Young Voices.
Today, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck another blow to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), ruling in Halbig v. Burwell that the federal government cannot provide subsidies to federal exchanges. What exactly does that mean? Here’s a layman’s explanation in seven simple parts:
- The ACA mandates individuals and employers to purchase health insurance. More specifically, individuals must have health insurance by 2014, and employers with more than 50 full-time employees must provide health insurance by 2015 (although there’s a number of exceptions).
- To fulfill the mandate, the ACA created exchanges for individuals and employers to purchase “affordable” health insurance subsidized by the federal government. The exchanges serve as online marketplaces where individuals earning 100-400% of the federal poverty line are eligible for subsidies in order to put the “Affordable” in “Affordable Care Act.”
- The ACA gave states the option of creating a state-administered exchange or defer to the federal government to create one. 17 states opted to run their own, 27 decided to defer to the Feds, and 7 created so-called “partnership marketplaces” in cooperation with Washington.
- Whether intentional or not, the ACA as written provides federal subsidies to state exchanges but says nothing about subsidies to federal exchanges. The Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon theorized that this omission was an intentional feature of the law in order to incentivize states to create their own exchanges. Many ACA defendants, on the other hand, argued that it was a simple drafting error.
- In 2012, the IRS finalized a regulation requiring the federal government to provide subsidies to federal exchanges, despite the fact this power was missing from the law. A number of individuals and businesses promptly sued in four appeals court circuits, hence the Halbig case.
- In Halbig, the Plaintiffs argued the omission was intentional, the government argued that it’s irrelevant. The plaintiffs went with Cannon’s theory that the omission is a feature, not a mistake, of the law to encourage states to create their own exchanges. The Feds, on the other hand, essentially argued that the text of the ACA treats the two exchanges as equivalent.
- The DC Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Halbig, creating a circuit split. On the same day as the Halbig decision, the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia upheld the federal subsidies as legal. These conflicting rulings inevitably mean the matter will be decided by the Supreme Court, foreshadowing more wonky drama in the near future.
Advocate Jared Meyer was published in The Washington Examiner on Obamacare in the aftermath of the Hobby Lobby decision.
In terms of economics, the Supreme Court’s ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby gives opponents of Obamacare little to celebrate.
The case is narrow in its application. It is specifically applicable to “closely held businesses,” and does not affect all organizations. Additionally, only two types of birth control are exempted (morning-after pills and IUDs). This means the Affordable Care Act still retains many of its negative economic consequences.
You can read the piece online here.
If you’d like to reach out toJared or any other Advocate, please contact Young Voices.
Advocate PierreGuy Veer was published in TheBlaze on the recent wave of court ruling striking down gay marriage bans.
The Hobby Lobby decision has stirred up quite a debate. While conservatives rejoice at this apparent respect of First Amendment rights (freedom of religion), liberals get all worked up about the violation of reproductive rights, the misogyny of the Supreme Court, and a plot to establish atheocracy.
However, no one seems to be asking a fundamental question: Why is government regulating health insurance in the first place?
You can find the full piece here.
If you’d like to book PierreGuy or any other Advocate, please contact Young Voices.
Editor Casey Given was published in TheBlaze on Medicaid’s coverage gap under the Affordable Care Act.
As Obamacare cheerleaders continue their victory lap after last month’s exchange deadline, many are now turning their attention to states that have not yet expanded Medicaid.
The Orlando Weekly published an article this week tracing the ordeal of Charlene Dill, a Florida woman who died without health insurance because she fell into Obamacare’s so-called “coverage gap” — earning too little to enroll in Medicaid but too much to qualify for exchange subsidies.
The article condemned Florida Republicans for failing to expand Medicaid as offered under Obamacare. However, a closer look at the broken program surprisingly suggests that the Sunshine State — and the 24 others that haven’t expanded the program so far — may have made the more humane decision.
You can read the entire piece here.
If you’d like to book Casey or any other Advocate, please contact Young Voices.