On April 30th, Cato Senior Fellow & UChicago Law grad, Ilya Shapiro, debated UChicago Law Professor, David Strauss, on the constitutionality of “Obamacare”. The event was sponsored by the University Republicans & the Federalist Society.
On July 8, 2010 Ernie Dumas wrote the article “Health law gains acceptance in Arkansas: There is a lot to like, including cash infusion for state” which was published by the Arkansas Times. On the subject of Medicaid there is more concern though, at least from the governor. In that article Dumas attempts to get Governor Beebe to endorse his thesis but the governor is wise enough not to jump on board so fast. Dumas wrote:
He still is concerned that a sharply expanded Medicaid program will put a significant burden on the state, even if it is eight or nine years away.
“It would be easy for me to say that it will be fine until 2017 or later since I won’t be here,” Beebe said. “I may not be here next January and for sure I won’t be here in 2017. But I have a responsibility to look at the impact things will have long after I leave.”
Ilya Shapiro delivered this testimony on Jan 24, 2011 to the Arkansas House of Representatives. This was later put into a paper “On the Arkansas Health Care Freedom Act and Its Relationship to Obamacare.” He stated:
But the individual mandate is only the highest-profile tip of an iceberg that, if not avoided, will sink our constitutional vessel. For example, going beyond the Health Care Freedom Act (HCFA) for a moment, it should concern you, as state legislators, that Obamacare impermissibly coerces states by forcing them to accept a greatly expanded and fundamentally transformed Medicaid program. States such as Arkansas face an all-or-nothing proposition that is effectively a Hobson’s Choice: either accept the new Medicaid regime and suffer devastating consequences to your already-strained budget, or forgo access to many billions of dollars annually which the federal government collects from all taxpayers and then returns only to those states that remain in Medicaid. Neither Obamacare nor any other existing federal statute provides a mechanism for states to withdraw from Medicaid, and no process exists to protect the health and welfare of the poorest residents of states that wish to transition away.
Thus, contrary to the government’s suggestion in the Florida case, opting out of Medicaid is not a viable option by which states can avoid Obamacare’s ruinous effects. Accordingly, the legislation’s impositions on states, including Arkansas, “pass the point at which, ‘pressure turns into compulsion.'” South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 211 (1987) (quoting Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 395 U.S. 548, 590 (1937)).
In short, passing the HCFA would be a step toward protecting both individual liberty and state sovereignty as defined by our Constitution. I would support such a development and also urge you to seriously consider either joining the Florida-led lawsuit or, taking the example of Virginia and Oklahoma, forging ahead on your own. Should you need more information, I have found two websites to be invaluable resources regarding all of the Obamacare lawsuits: healthcarelawsuits.org and acalitigationblog.blogspot.com. I am also happy to answer any further questions you may have and can be reached at (202) 577-1134 or ishapiro@cato.org.
Reductions in Medicare outlays finance about half of the legislation’s $1 trillion in new entitlement spending. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office verifies that the legislation would reduce Medicare benefits. President Obama’s top Medicare actuary verifies that it would reduce access to care for Medicare beneficiaries.
Of course, Congress needs to restrain Medicare spending. Otherwise, income-tax rates would have to double by midcentury. But the solution is to make Medicare more efficient, not to use price controls and bureaucratic rationing.
The Daily Hatch 