The Obamacare Funding Farce

Sorry, Ted Cruz. Obamacare needs less money from Congress now that insurers are helping to finance it.

National Journal
March 4, 2014, 4:50 p.m.

Pres­id­ent Obama is ask­ing Con­gress for more money to im­ple­ment Obama­care. Surely he knows Re­pub­lic­ans won’t give it to him. And Re­pub­lic­ans — just as surely — know that Obama­care will be im­ple­men­ted any­way, be­cause the law con­tains ways for the ad­min­is­tra­tion to fund it with or without Con­gress’s help.

And around and around we go in the flat circle that is Obama­care polit­ics.

It’s all a bit of polit­ic­al theat­er, but it has con­sequences on the ground: The phony fight over “de­fund­ing” the Af­ford­able Care Act drove the gov­ern­ment to shut down this fall — even though the vast ma­jor­ity of fund­ing for the law was nev­er at stake.

Tues­day, it began again, when the White House’s newly re­leased budget pro­pos­al re­ques­ted about $630 mil­lion to sup­port fed­er­ally run in­sur­ance ex­changes — the center­piece of the ACA.

The ad­min­is­tra­tion re­ques­ted al­most twice that amount last year, and the pro­pos­al was so thor­oughly dead on ar­rival that Sen­ate Demo­crats didn’t even try to pass the ex­tra fund­ing. They settled for beat­ing back the equally fu­tile ef­fort led by Sen. Ted Cruz to “de­fund” the law. And after the shut­down was over and the his­tri­on­ics were fin­ished, the status quo re­mained largely in­tact.

This year prom­ises to be little dif­fer­ent.

So, the White House won’t get the $630 mil­lion it says it needs. And it could use the money: Be­cause the ACA didn’t provide any dir­ect fund­ing for fed­er­ally run in­sur­ance ex­changes, the Health and Hu­man Ser­vices De­part­ment has had to cobble to­geth­er as much as it could, through a pro­cess that’s ba­sic­ally the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment’s ver­sion of rum­ma­ging through the couch cush­ions for loose change.

But the ad­min­is­tra­tion has con­sist­ently found ways to work around con­gres­sion­al Re­pub­lic­ans. Con­sider the latest re­quest for ad­di­tion­al fund­ing: HHS is ask­ing for $630 mil­lion, after seek­ing $1.5 bil­lion last year. Why the drop?

It’s be­cause the ad­min­is­tra­tion is now col­lect­ing user fees from the in­sur­ance com­pan­ies that sell plans through Obama­care’s ex­changes. Those fees will bring in around $1.2 bil­lion next year, ac­cord­ing to HHS’s budget doc­u­ments.

The de­part­ment ad­ded those rev­en­ues in with its re­quest from Con­gress, cre­at­ing a total fund­ing short­fall that’s ac­tu­ally a little bit big­ger than last year’s. But now in­surers are provid­ing the ad­di­tion­al fund­ing that Con­gress won’t.

And like so much of the law’s fund­ing, it doesn’t re­quire con­gres­sion­al ap­prov­al. Short of re­peal­ing Obama­care, which is just as un­real­ist­ic as fund­ing it, there’s not much Re­pub­lic­ans can do to cut off these rev­en­ues.

This is why the gov­ern­ment shut­down was so di­vis­ive even among Re­pub­lic­ans. Shut­ting down the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment did very little to stop the flow of money to im­ple­ment the ACA, be­cause most of Obama­care’s fund­ing was provided in Obama­care it­self — not through the reg­u­lar ap­pro­pri­ations pro­cess.

HHS has had to get cre­at­ive to find money for the ex­changes. It tapped pots of money from oth­er parts of the law, some­times an­ger­ing Demo­crat­ic al­lies. It drew down a $1 bil­lion fund for gen­er­al im­ple­ment­a­tion work, and also tapped the law’s pre­ven­tion and pub­lic health fund. Re­pub­lic­ans did suc­cess­fully cut that fund by $1 bil­lion in the spend­ing bill that re­opened the gov­ern­ment, pre­vent­ing HHS from us­ing it again to stand up the ex­changes.

Some of the tricks and back doors HHS used to find ex­tra cash are now ex­hausted or close to it, but in­surers’ user fees are pick­ing up most of the dif­fer­ence.

The de­part­ment de­cided in 2012 that in­sur­ance plans would pay a fee of 3.5 per­cent of their premi­ums to help the fed­er­ally run ex­changes func­tion. (States that run their own mar­ket­places can set their own fees, or choose not to charge one.) Rev­en­ue from the fees will go up along with en­roll­ment.

What We're Following See More »
FINANCIAL CRIMES, PLUS LYING TO CONGRESS
Mueller Requests Four-Year Prison Time for Cohen
1 days ago
THE LATEST

"Michael Cohen, President Trump’s former lawyer, should receive a “substantial” prison term of roughly four years, federal prosecutors in New York said on Friday. Mr. Cohen, 52, is to be sentenced in Manhattan for two separate guilty pleas: one for campaign finance violations and financial crimes charged by federal prosecutors in Manhattan, and the other for lying to Congress in the Russia inquiry, filed by Mr. Mueller’s office."

Source:
HE HELD THE ROLE FROM 1991-93
Trump Nominates Bill Barr as AG
2 days ago
THE DETAILS
MAIN RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA OUTLET
Mueller Questioning Trump Aide About Appearances on RT
2 days ago
THE LATEST

"Robert Mueller is allegedly examining a Trump campaign adviser’s appearances on the Kremlin-controlled broadcaster RT, offering new hints about the investigation into possible collusion between Moscow and Donald Trump’s associates. Mueller’s investigators have asked Ted Malloch, the London-based American academic who is also close to Nigel Farage, about his frequent appearances on RT, which US intelligence authorities have called Russia’s principal propaganda arm."

Source:
IT ALL COMES DOWN TO DEC. 21
Senate Passes Two-Week Stopgap
3 days ago
THE LATEST
EXTENDS DEADLINE TO DEC. 21
House Passes Two-Week Stopgap
3 days ago
THE LATEST
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login