The Republicans have a plan:
While a full repeal would have to originate in Congress, Price’s nomination promises quick action to roll back regulatory changes that come from the blank-check authority given to HHS by the ACA. The controversial contraception mandate will almost certainly be at the top of that list. Price has opposed that from the moment Kathleen Sebelius issued the regulation, specifically citing its infringement “with our fundamental right to religious freedom.”
Twila Brase, president of the Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom, reminded the Examiner’s Robert King that Price can easily undo most of what Sebelius implemented while waiting for Congress to act. “There are tens of thousands of pages of Obamacare regulations that can be rescinded, amended or left unenforced on the way to repeal, and we encourage him to make every effort to begin shutting down Obamacare by shutting down its regulations.” Such are the vulnerabilities of regulatory legacies.
Democrats have been quick to counter with accusations that Trump and his new administration will leave low-income Americans without health coverage. Obamacare also expanded Medicaid, which most states have adopted, and which accounts for nearly half of the claimed 20 million consumers who gained insurance after its adoption. Repealing Obamacare, its advocates claim, will leave those Americans in the lurch.
Trump’s second appointment this week provides a clear answer to those accusations. Seema Verma will take over the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services after having worked with vice-president elect Mike Pence to craft Indiana’s Medicaid expansion, as well as with Kentucky’s Matt Bevin and a handful of other Republican governors. Verma helped create Healthy Indiana 2.0 plan (HIP), a program that mixes the base coverage of Medicaid with tax credits and HSAs to produce incentives making utilization more efficient and effective.
Live by the pen and the phone, die by the pen and the phone.
I remember when Ol’ Jim used to croak that the GOP never proffered a plan. He said that because his Masters told him to.
He was informed that a Congresscritter named Price offered one in 2009 but that, of course, didn’t fit the narrative so Ol’ Jim ignored it.
Several other plans were introduced. They never made it past the Democrat/Marxist congress. The ones that made it past the GOP controlled Congress were sunk by Obama’s pen.
But….things have changed. This is going to be Trump’s Big Test as far as I’m concerned (followed very closely by the illegal immigration issue). Let’s see what he does.
I still have misgivings about Trump – even though I voted for him. I’ll be pleasantly surprised if Trump comes through on destroying Obama-cide.
But I must say that the selection of Price and Verma is very encouraging.
The article might be a little cavalier about what a new president can do with regulations on the books. A notice of proposed rulemaking may be withdrawn. Codified final rules, however, require rulemaking to be undone, and rulemaking proceedings take years. Suggesting that regulations may be undone with a pen might lead to a false sense of security. Additionally, the undoing of regulations requires a rational basis and conformity to the law just as the original rule did.
If someone sues the agency over the change in rules, and the agency didn’t do a good job of explaining why it made the change, the courts can stop the change or require the agency to start over. Rulemaking can be just as interminable as the legislative process. See, for example, the State Farm case from the ’80’s.
I quite agree. But here we supposedly have both branches of Congress and the presidency in the hands of the Republicans (though notably they don’t have the necessary 60 vote supermajority in the Senate to shut out Democrat filibustering). They play their hand with a bit of care, they can get the necessary legislation to make this fully possible.
The opportunity is there.
That’s a problem that could be fixed with legislation, I’d think. There’s nothing about “rulemaking” in the Constitution.
Yes. Legislation can change the effects of regulations. Legislation trumps regulations. The article makes changing regulations without legislation sound too easy. It isn’t.
I’m just saying that, actual rulemaking aside, what Obama did by executive order to implement ObamaCare (that hasn’t already been knocked down by the courts) can be undone by executive order.
I believe it is much easier to change executive orders.
And, true, there’s nothing in the Constitution about rulemaking, but there is a law, the Administrative Procedure Act, and a whole lot of court cases, that ensure that rulemaking is not a quick process.
Gosh, maybe 90 percent of working stiffs won’t get screwed for Jim’s health care anymore.