Latest news with #PatientProtectionandAffordableCareAct
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
DOGE's Newly Listed 'Regulatory Savings' for Businesses Have Nothing to Do With Cutting Federal Spending
This month the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) published new estimates of "savings" from various regulatory changes, which it says total $29.4 billion so far. The New York Times suggests several reasons to question these numbers but overlooks the most fundamental problem: Although deregulation accounts for about 17 percent of the $175 billion in total "estimated savings" that DOGE claims, the numbers in this category generally have nothing to do with federal spending, the project's ostensible target. One possible exception: DOGE claims changes to the rules governing health insurance subsidies under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will save $10 billion, and at least some of that may represent reduced federal spending. But according to an "unnamed senior administration official" quoted by the Times, DOGE's estimates of the impact from regulatory changes "represent cost savings for regulated parties." DOGE plausibly claims deregulation will reduce costs for businesses, and it may also benefit consumers in various ways. But those benefits have no impact on the annual budget deficit or the accumulating national debt. It is therefore illogical to include such "regulatory savings" in a tally that is supposed to show how far DOGE has gone in tackling those problems. Even if we ignore this conceptual confusion and accept DOGE's numbers, its progress represents a drop in the bucket of the federal government's fiscal incontinence, which is mainly due to spending over which DOGE has no control. DOGE's avowed accomplishments also fall far short of the ambitious goals set by Elon Musk, the billionaire entrepreneur who unofficially ran the initiative until his recent pivot back to his businesses. Musk, who originally thought DOGE could reduce annual federal spending by "at least" $2 trillion, cut that target in half in February. But as recently as late March, he was still confident that DOGE could achieve $1 trillion in annual savings. On its face, DOGE's current estimate falls about 83 percent short of that goal. But because that estimate includes multi-year savings, such as projections of the total that would have been spent under canceled grants and contracts, it does not tell us how much DOGE claims to be saving in any given fiscal year. In April, Musk projected that the savings in FY 2026, when DOGE is scheduled to sunset, would be about $150 billion. But that estimate, which refers to a specific year, should not be confused with DOGE's periodically updated "estimated savings," a number that includes spending reductions that span multiple years. Keeping that distinction in mind, there are reasons to doubt whether even these modest savings will materialize. News organizations have identified many problems in DOGE's "Wall of Receipts," which lists canceled or modified contracts, grants, and leases. The errors include contracts that were not actually canceled, contracts that were terminated during the Biden administration, iffy estimates of savings on contracts that had not been awarded yet, contracts that were counted multiple times, conflation of contract caps with actual spending, the inclusion of past spending in estimates of future savings, and overvaluation of contracts and grants. The Times, which publicized many of those mistakes, sees similar exaggeration in DOGE's new list of "regulation repeals and modifications." Reporters Coral Davenport and Stacy Cowley "examined 10 of the largest claims on the leaderboard" and concluded that "several did not show evidence of savings to households." Right away we see a problem. DOGE does not claim the "regulatory savings" accrue to "households," although it does say its total "estimated savings," which include the "regulatory savings," amount to $1,086.96 "per taxpayer." In any case, both ways of framing the numbers overlook the point that DOGE is supposed to be reducing federal spending. Its estimates of "regulatory savings" for businesses are irrelevant in that context. Instead of delving into that puzzle, Davenport and Cowley question the wisdom of various regulatory changes. They note, for example, that DOGE "claims that the Energy Department's proposals to reverse 16 efficiency standards on appliances like dishwashers and microwaves will save Americans a combined $4 billion." Yet according to "government scientists' own accounting," they say, "appliance efficiency standards saved the average American household about $576 in 2024 on water and gas bills." That is not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison, and it takes for granted the paternalistic premise that consumers are not smart enough to assess their own interests. Left to their own devices, Davenport and Cowley assume, Americans would irrationally discount the long-term savings from reduced utility bills. They might prefer cheaper appliances that save them money up front or dishwashers that use more water per cycle but clean dishes better in less time. In any event, appliance manufacturers are free to tout the cost-cutting advantages of more "efficient" models, which may or may not persuade any particular consumer. As Davenport and Cowley see it, that would give Americans more freedom than the federal government should allow. What does any of this have to do with the accuracy of DOGE's numbers? According to "multiple experts in regulatory policy," Davenport and Cowley say, "many of the numbers DOGE and the Trump administration cite show little to no evidence of the comprehensive cost-benefit analysis" that "has historically undergirded agency regulations," which considers the impact on "individuals and households" as well as regulated businesses. Davenport and Cowley see a similar problem with DOGE's estimate that rescinding the Biden administration's limits on credit card late fees "will save Americans $9.5 billion." That can't be right, they say, because "government analysts" in the prior administration "calculated that the rule would save millions of customers an average of $220 per year," totaling "about $10 billion annually, mostly in avoided bank penalties." By ignoring those savings, Davenport and Cowley think, DOGE is presenting a misleading picture. Yet the estimate that they cite does not take into account the unintended results of capping late fees, which could hurt consumers. "Individuals considered risky are still able to access credit because of contractual terms like late fees," Reason Contributing Editor Veronique De Rugy noted in 2023. "Lighten the fees and delayed payments will increase, making lending money riskier for institutions. When that happens, the only tools left to manage risk will be higher interest rates—which means higher costs even for responsible borrowers—or outright denials of low-income credit card applicants." Whatever the merits of the policy that the Trump administration reversed, the savings DOGE is claiming based on that change do not imply any reduction in government spending. Nor do the savings it attributes to relaxed appliance efficiency standards, which may increase consumer freedom but have no impact on federal outlays. "The cost savings from [those] unprecedented deregulatory actions represent projected savings to both consumers and manufacturers based on a variety of factors, including increased choice of lower cost appliances and lower compliance costs," a Department of Energy spokeswoman told the Times. That is all well and good, but it does not explain why those savings should be counted in any calculation of the Trump administration's success at curtailing runaway federal borrowing. Given DOGE's track record, there is ample reason to be wary of the dollar figures it attaches to particular regulatory changes. To begin with, DOGE does not specify what period of time is covered by each item. Are these total savings or annual savings? Davenport and Cowley offer more grounds for skepticism. They note, for example, that DOGE says rolling back water efficiency standards for commercial washers "would save Americans $1.9 billion." That seems implausible, they say, since "the entire market for commercial washers is about $6.5 billion." They quote Steve Cicala, co-director of the National Bureau of Economic Research's Project on the Economic Analysis of Regulation, who says "there's just no way that number makes any sense." Susan Dudley, "an expert in regulatory policy at George Washington University" who "served as the senior regulatory official in the George W. Bush administration," concurs. "I don't understand how anyone thinking this through could account for that claim of savings," she told the Times. "This was one of my concerns with DOGE from the beginning. They're not doing their homework, and they're not showing their work." That take jibes with the impressions of budget experts such as the Manhattan Institute's Jessica Riedl, the American Enterprise Institute's Nat Malkus, and the Cato Institute's Romina Boccia. But in this case, the problem is not just that DOGE's numbers are unreliable or that its results are unimpressive even when taken at face value. The problem is that DOGE implicitly portrays "regulatory savings" for businesses as a step, however tiny, toward federal fiscal sanity. The post DOGE's Newly Listed 'Regulatory Savings' for Businesses Have Nothing to Do With Cutting Federal Spending appeared first on
Forbes
23-05-2025
- Health
- Forbes
Make America Tan Again: 'Big, Beautiful Bill' Burns The Tanning Tax
After Obamacare slapped a 10% tax on tanning bed services, Nicole "Snooki" Polizzi launched her Sunless Tanning Collection. (She's shown here at a 2012 launch event.) Spray-on tans are exempt from the tax, which Republicans now want to repeal. Tucked among the trillions of tax cuts in the House's just-passed 'big, beautiful bill' is the repeal of the tax on indoor tanning services. But before you rush to book a tanning bed appointment, remember that the Senate still has to act on this bill and that dermatologists are no fans of tanning. The tanning tax, a 10% excise tax on indoor tanning services, dates back to 2010. It was part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—better known as Obamacare. When Congress wants to find money to pay for things that matter to them—like healthcare or tax cuts—they generally have to offset those costs. Sometimes, those offsets are in the form of reduced spending or benefit cuts, but more often than not, they show up as new or increased taxes. That's what happened here. The tax was intended to help pay for the new healthcare law. You can think of an excise tax as being like a sales tax. When it comes to the tanning excise tax, the rules require salons and other businesses providing ultraviolet tanning services to collect a 10% excise tax on the applicable services. Spray-on tans and phototherapy services (those used for medical reasons) are exempt from the tax. And if services are bundled, the portion attributable to tanning is taxable. If, however, the service is part of a gym or other fitness center package that isn't separable, there's no tax payable. The tanning tax was intended not only to raise revenue but also to discourage the use of indoor tanning beds. As a result, it was championed by health organizations, including the American Academy of Dermatology (AADA) and the American Medical Association (AMA). In a 2018 letter to then-House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the two joined dozens of other health organizations to oppose a planned repeal of the tanning tax, writing, 'The United States Department of Health and Human Services and the World Health Organization's International Agency of Research on Cancer panel have declared ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun and artificial sources, such as tanning beds and sun lamps, to be a known carcinogen (cancer-causing substance).' The letter went on to say that, 'Researchers estimate that indoor tanning may cause upwards of 400,000 cases of skin cancer in the U.S. each year.' The attempted repeal in 2018 eventually failed, as did a previous effort to repeal the tax in 2015. The repeals might have failed on public policy grounds, or more likely, revenue-related results. One of the interesting things about excise taxes that are intended to impact behavior is that if they are successful, the revenue portion shrinks. In other words, if the goal is to curb behavior (other taxes try to reduce smoking, for example) by taxing the behavior, as success rates go up, dollars go down. That's what happened here. The tax was expected to raise $2.7 billion over the first decade. After five years, it had raised less than $500 million. According to the Office of Management and Budget, the feds only collected $92 million from the tax in 2014. Champions of the tax say that's because the tax worked, effectively discouraging the use of tanning beds. But businesses cried foul, claiming that the tax ruined their business. According to IBISWorld, in 2011, there were nearly 85,000 tanning salon establishments operating in the U.S. By 2024, that number had shrunk to less than 21,000. A 2023 National Institutes of Health study suggests that tanning bed behaviors were changing anyway. Concerns about aging and skin care, as well as the health risks, have resulted in a tilt towards self-applied sunless tanning products, such as lotion tanning and spray tanning. Even pop culture caught on. The most-talked-about tanned celebrity of the early naughts—Snooki from MTV's now-defunct reality show, 'Jersey Shore'—lamented after the tax became law, 'I don't go tanning anymore because Obama put a 10% tax on tanning. And I feel like he did that intentionally for us.' Today, you can buy Snooki sunless tanning products online. The planned repeal hasn't gotten a lot of attention. To be honest, I didn't even notice it when I first read through the bill—it's a couple of paragraphs about halfway through the text, stuck between new Form 1099 thresholds and exclusion of interest from income on certain rural and agricultural loans. The bill passed the House earlier this week with the tanning tax repeal still intact. It now moves to the Senate.
Epoch Times
21-04-2025
- Health
- Epoch Times
Supreme Court Hears Challenge to Task Force That Issues Preventive Care Mandates
Supreme Court justices considered on April 21 the constitutionality of a federal panel that issues mandates requiring insurers to cover preventive medical services without cost to patients. In Kennedy v. Braidwood Management Inc., the justices examined a provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that allows the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force to make binding recommendations about preventive medical services, such as medications and screenings. The act, also known as the Obamacare statute, was enacted in 2010. The task force, part of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Members of the task force are appointed by the HHS secretary. Texas-based Braidwood Management sued over mandates that the task force approved, to which the company expressed religious objections. Related Stories 4/21/2025 1/11/2025 The mandates cover a wide variety of treatments, including HIV prevention medicine and sexually transmitted disease screenings. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held in June 2024 that the task force's mandates were invalid because the structure of the task force violates the Constitution's appointments clause, according to the government's September 2024 That clause provides that the U.S. president may appoint officers to assist him in carrying out his responsibilities. Principal officers must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, but inferior officers may be appointed by the president alone, the head of an executive department, or a court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit determined the mandates could not be upheld because the task force members were not appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. The federal district court was correct to block HHS from enforcing the mandates, the circuit court stated, according to the petition. Braidwood, which is being represented by a legal team that includes the America First Legal Foundation, also The brief said the statute 'is of immense importance,' and that the high court 'should weigh in rather than leaving the constitutionality of [the law] and the appointments of the Task Force members to be resolved entirely by the court of appeals.' Braidwood's attorney, Jonathan Mitchell, told the justices during the April 21 oral argument that the Fifth Circuit was correct to hold that task force members are 'principal officers.' 'They cannot be inferior officers because their … preventive care coverage mandates, are neither directed nor supervised by the secretary of Health and Human Services or by anyone else who has been appointed as a principal officer,' he said. Mitchell said the Supreme Court 'must, to the maximum possible extent, respect the will of Congress as reflected in its enacted laws.' 'The government's proposed remedy would rewrite the statute into something unrecognizable by the Congress that enacted the [statute],' he said. 'It is not even clear that Congress would have approved a regime in which politicians, rather than an independent task force, decide the preventive care that insurers must cover.' Chief Justice John Roberts told Mitchell that the task force's work is 'fairly technical, medically and scientifically.' Is the HHS secretary supposed to be examining details of recommendations, Roberts asked. Mitchell said the secretary 'clearly has the authority to do so,' but whether he chooses to defer to the expertise of the members 'is irrelevant to the constitutional question.' Justice Brett Kavanaugh said Braidwood's argument treats the task force as a 'massively important agency that operates with unreviewable authority to make really critical decisions that are going to affect the economy.' Normally, Congress would have made the importance of the task force clear, 'and I just don't see indications of that,' Kavanaugh said. Mitchell replied that the statute says the task force 'shall be independent and shielded from political pressure.' 'It's hard for me to see stronger language than that,' the lawyer said. Principal Deputy U.S. Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan said the task force members are inferior officers, not principal officers. The members are 'subject to ample supervision by the secretary in issuing recommendations that bind the public,' and the secretary can fire them at will, Mooppan said. The secretary can review members' recommendations, prevent them from taking effect, and order the members to rescind them, he said. The Supreme Court should find that the language in the legislative provision is 'unenforceable and severable,' meaning it can be struck down without invalidating the entire statute, Mooppan said. This is a developing story and will be updated.
Epoch Times
21-04-2025
- Health
- Epoch Times
Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Obamacare Preventive Care Rule
The Supreme Court on April 21 will hear a case about the constitutionality of a federal panel that issues mandates requiring insurers to cover preventive medical services without cost to patients. In Kennedy v. Braidwood Management Inc., the justices will consider the constitutionality of a federal law that allowed the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force to make binding recommendations about preventive medical services, such as medications and screenings. The legal provision is in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, which was enacted in 2010. The task force, housed within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) now led by Trump appointee Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Texas-based Braidwood Management sued over mandates that the task force approved to which the company expressed religious objections. The mandates cover HIV prevention medicine, sexually transmitted disease screenings, and various treatments. The case is one of several in recent years that aim to restore constitutional checks and balances, a legal expert told The Epoch Times. The Supreme Court has been accepting cases in recent years in an effort 'to rein in the administrative state,' John Bursch, senior counsel at the Alliance Defending Freedom, a public interest law firm, told The Epoch Times. Related Stories 1/11/2025 2/14/2025 'It's part of this trend over the last 20 to 25 years that [is] seeking to restore some of the original checks and balances in the Constitution,' he said, adding that 'one of those efforts culminated in Loper Bright.' In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024), the high court According to the government's September 2024 That clause provides that the president may appoint officers to assist him in carrying out his responsibilities. Principal officers must be appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, but inferior officers may be appointed by the president alone, the head of an executive department, or a court. The mandates could not be upheld because the task force members were not appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, the Fifth Circuit found, according to the petition. The federal district court was correct to block HHS from enforcing the mandates, the circuit court stated, according to the petition. The federal government argued in its petition that the Fifth Circuit's ruling 'jeopardizes healthcare protections that have been in place for 14 years and that millions of Americans currently enjoy.' Braidwood, which is being represented by a legal team that includes the America First Legal Foundation, also The brief said the statute 'is of immense importance,' and that the high court 'should weigh in rather than leaving the constitutionality of [the law] and the appointments of the Task Force members to be resolved entirely by the court of appeals.' Bursch said the justices are likely to focus on Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau from 2020 during the oral argument on April 21. In Seila Law, the court held that the structure of the bureau was unconstitutional because its director, who must be confirmed by the Senate, couldn't be fired by the president at will, and this insulated the bureau from political accountability. The court held the agency could continue to exist under new rules that allowed the president to fire the director at will. The legal issue here is whether the people making healthcare coverage decisions are 'so independent that it becomes a constitutional delegation problem,' in which the officials can 'go rogue and are able to do their own thing,' Bursch said. The nondelegation doctrine holds that Congress may not delegate its legislative powers to other entities, including private organizations and administrative agencies. The Alliance Defending Freedom filed a friend-of-the-court The friend-of-the-court brief said that at first glance, the case 'is about whether members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force are principal or inferior officers,' but it is actually about 'whether officers of the United States, principal or inferior alike, can wield executive power independent from the President and so from the people.' Task force members 'must be accountable to [the president] who in turn is accountable to all of us. That's our system. For executive power, the buck stops with the President,' it said. Bursch said the government argues the statute makes the task force an independent committee that reports to the HHS secretary, but Braidwood Management's position is that the law places the task force members outside the executive branch. The question is whether the people who are making policies through the task force 'have enough supervision and control over them [so] that they don't become independent of the executive,' he said. If, for example, Congress had written in the Affordable Care Act that the HHS secretary and president may not remove, replace, or reappoint members of the task force and that its policy recommendations may not be questioned by the president and secretary, 'that would clearly be unconstitutional,' Bursch said. The attorney said the current structure of the task force is 'a hybrid' between this example, in which the president and secretary cannot review task force decisions, and the traditional federal agency, in which the president and secretary have 'a lot of control.' Braidwood Management's position is that the task force members are principal officers because they weren't appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. 'The whole thing is unconstitutional,' he said. Sam Dorman contributed to this report.
Yahoo
28-02-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Claims of 'royalties' paid to former president Obama stem from satire
"DOGE stopped an annual payment to Barack Obama for $2.6 million for 'royalties associated with Obamacare.' He's been collecting since 2010 for a total of $39 million taxpayer dollars," reads text over an image, posted to Facebook on February 27, 2025 and shared more than 25,000 times. Similar posts, accusing the former president of profiting from a trademark of "Obamacare," the popular name for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, enacted in 2010, also spread on X, TikTok and Instagram. ` Since starting his second term in January, Donald Trump has vowed to slash government spending, and in a joint interview with Musk on Fox News said that the DOGE team headed by the tech billionaire has become an enforcement mechanism within the federal bureaucracy to enact his administration's agenda. Musk has used his social media platform X to amplify his team's positions, while also sharing unproven allegations about fraud identified in government agencies. The claim that the government was paying royalties to the former president is also incorrect. A search of the US Patent and Trademark Office database showed no registered trademark for "Obamacare" or the name "Obama." The search turned up applications from 12 private companies, unrelated to the former president, 11 of which were denied because of their reference to a public figure (archived here). One is still pending. Kristelia García, a law professor at Georgetown University (archived here), told AFP that federal law restricts others from registering a trademark of a well-known living person, and it would be atypical for Obama to take it for himself (archived here). "Government actors, acting in their official capacity don't generally trademark (or, for that matter, copyright) their work product," García said via email. Even if Obama were to have filed an Obamacare trademark while in office, the mark would likely belong to the government, since the Affordable Care Act is a federal product, according to Erik Pelton, an intellectual property lawyer and Georgetown University professor (archived here). Pelton pointed to Trump's pending trademark on the term "Space Force," a branch of the military created by the president in 2019, as a legal reference point. "He created the Space Force. And the name Space Force is a trademark pending that's owned by the US military," Pelton said. "Because it's a governmental program, that's who would own the name." AFP reached out to Obama for comment, but no response was forthcoming. The current claims are a case of "stolen satire" -- when a satirical story is taken out of its original context and framed online as fact or without an apparent disclaimer. Keyword searches trace the post back to a meme shared by "America's Last Line of Defense" (ALLOD), a satirical social media account that often publishes fictional stories mistaken for real news. The shared image links back to an associated satirical article on its subsidiary website The Dunning Kruger Times. ALLOD's Facebook page, says: "Network of trollery and propaganda for cash. Nothing on this page is real." A watermark from the website can be found in the bottom right corner of some of the circulating posts. The meme repurposes a story published on ALLOD's website in 2017 that is no longer publicly available. The story was debunked by Snopes when it originally circulated. Christopher Blair, founder of ALLOD, told AFP in 2020 that "confirmation bias" causes people to share the content he creates. "Whether or not a thing is true no longer matters to about 35 million Americans," Blair said. "If it's what they want to hear, they'll pass it along." AFP fact checked similar claims about alleged fraudulent government spending here.
