Monday, April 30, 2012

How Obama is buying off seniors until after the election

Timothy Carney explains how Obama is using a slush fund of money from Obamacare to make sure that the cuts to Medicare Advantage don't take place until after the election. And the GAO is calling him on it.
In 2010, Democrats were crowing that Obamacare would reduce the deficit. Under official budget scoring, the bill's $940 billion in new spending over a decade was more than paid for by a trillion dollars in new taxes and spending cuts.

Obamacare got some of its alleged savings by cutting Medicare spending by $500 billion. Republicans -- hypocritically, given their constant attacks on "government-run health care" -- made political hay over the Medicare cuts. Republicans know that seniors vote, and they like their Medicare.

Specifically, 12 million seniors use a program called Medicare Advantage, under which the government pays private insurers to cover seniors.

Medicare Advantage customers typically have more options, and at times more coverage, than standard Medicare customers. But the Obama administration said Medicare was overpaying the private insurers, and so the architects of Obamacare slashed $136 billion from Medicare Advantage to offset the cost of Obamacare.

The Medicare Advantage cuts were to begin in 2013, which would cause many insurers to pull out of the program, thus driving seniors into regular Medicare. So much for "if you like your plan, you can keep it."

The New York Post's Benjamin Sasse and Charlie Hurt explained the awkward details of timing: "Open enrollment [for 2013 Medicare Advantage] begins Oct. 15, less than three weeks before voters go to the polls." So Obamacare would kick seniors out of their Medicare program three weeks before Obama's re-election.

That, of course, would be politically damaging. So Obama simply took $8.35 billion from a Obamacare fund for "demonstration projects" and used it to delay the brunt of the Medicare Advantage cuts until after the election.

The GAO last week pointed out the extraordinary nature of this "demonstration." The program "dwarfs all other Medicare demonstrations -- both mandatory and discretionary -- conducted since 1995," the GAO stated.

And the GAO made it pretty clear that this slush fund trick looks little like a "demonstration" of anything. "The design of the demonstration precludes a credible evaluation of its effectiveness," the GAO report stated, concluding it is "unlikely that the demonstration will produce meaningful results."

But the Obama administration is looking for a different sort of "meaningful results" -- more votes on Election Day. So the Department of Health and Human Services stood firm when the GAO recommended scrapping this spurious demonstration.

The administration's sleight of hand on Medicare Advantage fits a pattern of Obamacare provisions that were abandoned when they were shown to be unworkable. What makes the Medicare gambit more distressing is that Obama is using taxpayer money for political purposes.
So basically, the President is using $8.35 billion to help his election campaign.
After all, a president isn’t generally thought to possess the power to reallocate Americans’ resources to shore up his political vulnerabilities. In defense of its actions, the administration is relying on a 1967 law that says the HHS secretary can spend money without specific congressional approval on “experiments” aimed at improving the execution of current law. Obama’s $8.35 billion allocation, however, isn’t aimed at improving the execution of current law. It’s aimed at delaying the execution of current law and thereby masking the effects of that law until after Obama’s reelection bid. The only “experiment” the administration is conducting is whether it can pull the wool over seniors’ eyes until the election is over.....

As Ben Sasse, HHS’s assistant secretary for planning and evaluation until early 2009 and now the president of Midland University, says, “If a presidential administration can simply make up the authority to make law and give itself the power of the purse to implement its new law—which not only isn’t designed to make existing law work but is actually against the purpose of existing law—why do we need a Congress?” Sasse adds, “In scope and intention, this is something completely new, and if it’s allowed to establish precedent, the only limit on what future administrations could spend money on, or how much they could unilaterally spend, would be their own electoral calculations about what they could get away with.”


And where is the surprise in all this? The Obama administration/campaign is hoping that this is all too complicated for seniors to grasp until it's too late. That's Obama's main strategy in the election - hope that voters are too uninformed to understand his flim-flammery. That's the real "hope" of the Obama campaign.

1 comment:

equitus said...

I'm thinking this might rise to the level of criminality - taking 8.5 BILLION for campaign purposes. Surely Congress can pursue this somehow.