Lee Statement on Gosnell Verdict
May 13, 2013
Remarks on the Late-Term Abortion Resolution
May 8, 2013
Lee Introduces Resolution to Review Illegal Abortion Practices
May 6, 2013
Lee on ObamaCare: We Know What's In It
Mar 13, 2013
Lee Joins Cruz In Demanding Vote On Delaying Funding of Obamacare As Part of Continuing Resolution
Mar 6, 2013
Patients vs. Providers: Controlling Costs of Healthcare -- Day Lee Briefing 9/05/2012
Sep 5, 2012
Today’s Agenda
Today, Senator Lee is attending the Uintah Energy Summit.
From the Senator’s Desk
Courtesy of the Republican staff of the Joint Economic Committee:
In his weekly Bloomberg column today, former Obama Administration budget director Peter Orszag once again attempts to defend Obamacare’s Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), the group of 15 unelected bureaucrats who will be empowered to make binding rulings on how to reduce Medicare spending. His arguments are based on two premises – each of which contains flaws. The first premise is that providers, not patients, should affect most health care spending:
Focusing on providers is key because health-care expenses are so concentrated: High-cost cases account for the vast majority of the total. In those cases, the care provided is, as it should be, mainly the services and tests recommended by the provider. So if you do not influence provider recommendations in those cases, you cannot do all that much to improve the system.
This premise is valid – to a point. Obviously, heart attack patients rushed to the emergency room will have little substantive opportunity to influence their health care spending decisions. But the statement lands on shakier ground in other cases; Orszag’s statement that care “should be” directed by the provider also implies that, for instance, knee replacement patients will not, and should not, be able to influence their course of treatment. In some cases, our health system currently lacks the proper tools to allow such patients to make fully informed choices – but enhanced price and quality transparency data can remedy this defect.
Orszag makes an even less compelling case when he argues that only Medicare can influence provider behavior: “For better or worse, only Medicare is large enough to lead the health-care system toward a new structure of payment for providers.” The problem with this argument is that Orszag and his fellow liberals only want to follow the logic one way. Because if liberals want to argue that only Medicare has the market clout to change the health care system, that also means Medicare’s size was large enough to cause the system’s current problems. And, nearly 50 years after Medicare’s creation, liberals haven’t explained how “This Time Is Different” – how a Medicare system can help solve a problem of exploding health costs that it helped to create. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office noted earlier this year that most Medicare demonstration programs over the past several decades have NOT saved money – suggesting Obamacare’s efforts to control costs by micro-managing Medicare in different fashion won’t work either.
The bottom line is that the philosophy Orszag approvingly recommends in which “direct modification of the behaviors of providers (versus consumers or payers)” by a board of government bureaucrats isn’t likely to be successful, in two respects. First, as noted above, CBO has taken a dim view towards the notion that better bureaucratic tinkering will change the dire direction of health spending, and the Medicare program. Second, and more fundamentally, the American people won’t take kindly to the idea of government bureaucrats engaging in “direct modification” of providers – while ignoring patients entirely. That smacks of everything Democrats said Obamacare was not – namely, a government takeover of health care. And it might explain why President Obama, despite blowing full speed ahead on virtually every other aspect of Obamacare implementation, has yet to appoint a single individual to IPAB – because he doesn’t want to reveal the board’s true design until after the November election.
On Twitter
Judge recommends approving Utah tar sands mine.We need to unlock more of the West's energy abundance: ow.ly/dm4Wl @brandonloomis
— Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) August 30, 2012
Avg economic growth during first 3 years in the 9 previous recoveries: 4.2%; Obama "recovery": 2.2% #AreYouBetterOff
— Brian Phillips (@SenLeeComs) September 4, 2012
It was wonderful meeting one of our Fox News favs @marthamaccallum last week! Give her a follow and help her reach 50K!
— Emily Bennion (@SenLeePressSec) September 3, 2012
Is America more competitive than it was #4yearsago? Not so much: bit.ly/TXcOkL #tcot #tlot
— Joe Tauke (@SenLeeResearch) September 5, 2012
Around the Water Cooler
Survey finds U.S. competitive ranking down again
The United States’ ability to compete on the global stage has fallen for the fourth year running as confidence in the country’s politicians continues to decline, an annual survey from the World Economic Forum found Wednesday.
The United States Treasury reports that the total public outstanding debt is: $16,015,769,788,215.80. This is the first time in American history debt has eclipsed the $16 trillion mark.
Looking Ahead
Tomorrow, Senator Lee will fly to Seattle to tour Microsoft’s Future Technology Lab and meet with business and technology leaders working there.
Middle Class Targeted with Premium Increase by Obamacare -- Day Lee Briefing 7/26/2012
Jul 26, 2012
The Hamburgler -- Day Lee Briefing 7/24/2012
Jul 24, 2012
Governors Rejecting Obamacare -- Day Lee Briefing 7/12/2012
Jul 12, 2012
Today’s Agenda
Today, Senator Lee will meet with representatives of Orthodox Union and the National Youth Leaders Conference. He will also attend a Foreign Relations Committee hearing at 9:00 AM EDT (7:00 MDT).
From the Senator’s Desk
Courtesy of the Republican staff of the Joint Economic Committee:
Writing in this morning’s Washington Post, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker has a must-read op-ed outlining how Obamacare’s poor policy prescriptions will harm his state. Among the bad side effects of the law:
- 100,000 people will be dropped by their employer-sponsored health insurance;
- 59 percent of people who buy their own health insurance will experience an average premium increase of 31 percent;
- 150,000 people will stop buying health insurance in the private sector and will instead become dependent on the government and taxpayers; and
- Between 2014 and 2019, Obamacare could cost Wisconsin taxpayers $1.12 billion; after all federal aid and tax credits are applied, the state’s portion of the bill will be $433 million.
These aren’t conclusions reached by Walker himself – they are among the conclusions of an actuarial analysis conducted in part by Jonathan Gruber, who served as a paid consultant to HHS in developing the Obamacare law. And the fact that even supporters of Obamacare admit the law will raise both insurance premiums and dependence on government programs is as strong an argument as any for the measure’s repeal.
On Twitter
Here is my mobile office schedule for July.We invite all Utahns to take advantage of this great resource: ow.ly/bZXwo #utpol
— Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) July 9, 2012
.@asheschow what are we up to now? #LOST
— Brian Phillips (@SenLeeComs) July 12, 2012
@AllisonCroghan Love that you used Sen Lee's tweets in last night's newscast. Really shows that Fox 13 is innovative in their reporting
— Emily Bennion (@SenLeePressSec) July 7, 2012
Jobs report "kind of disastrous", employment "not even keeping up with demographics": bit.ly/N4iVTv #ObamaIsntWorking #tcot #tlot
— Joe Tauke (@SenLeeResearch) July 6, 2012
Around the Water Cooler
Study: $15 trillion in welfare spending has had little impact since 1964
A policy analysis released by the Cato Institute in April shows that despite nearly $15 trillion in total welfare spending since President Lyndon Johnson began the "war on poverty" in 1964, the poverty rate in the United States has remained relatively constant.
Rising costs push California cities to fiscal brink
Facing the same financial stressors that pushed San Bernardino toward bankruptcy, cities across California are slashing day-to-day services and taking other drastic actions to skirt a similar fiscal collapse.
Looking Ahead
Tomorrow, Senator Lee will be back in Utah to meet with constituents.
A Hollow Victory for ObamaCare
Jul 2, 2012
This morning the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act (ACA). But I believe it will ultimately prove to be a hollow and short-lived victory for the health care law.
I believe it will prove hollow because the Supreme Court was able to find the individual mandate constitutional only through a series of extraordinary logical gymnastics that led the Court to conclude that the mandate is actually a tax. But, of course, members of Congress did not vote to pass the ACA as a tax. Nor did the American people understand it to be a tax. Indeed, President Obama himself flatly stated that the individual mandate “is absolutely not a tax increase”—that “nobody” considers it a tax.
As Justice Kennedy noted in his dissent, “[i]mposing a tax through judicial legislation inverts the constitutional scheme, and places the power to tax in the branch of government least accountable to the citizenry.” There is simply no way that the ACA would have become law had the American public and their representatives understood it as a tax.
As a result, I believe the practical effect of today’s Supreme Court decision upholding the mandate will be short-lived. As numerous public opinion polls confirm, the majority of citizens already oppose the individual mandate. As more Americans come to understand the individual mandate as a middle-class tax hike, it will only become more unpopular. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, at least 75 percent of the penalties or “taxes” imposed by the individual mandate will fall on hard-working Americans who make less than $250,000. In making choices at the ballot box this November, I believe the American people simply will not stand for the ACA to remain the law of the land.
When we look back at today’s decision in the coming months and years, it may ultimately be regarded less as a victory for the Affordable Care Act and instead as an important recognition and validation of the freedoms protected by our constitutional structure. The Court’s decision today upheld the individual mandate as a tax, but it also validated fundamental principles of limited government and federalism.
A majority of the justices rightfully concluded that Congress had exceeded its regulatory authority under the Commerce Clause by attempting to impose the individual mandate as a government directive. As Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion explained, “The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated. . . . Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. . . . That is not the country the Framers of our Constitution envisioned.”
In so holding, the majority opinion expressly embraced the limiting implications of the distinction between activity and inactivity, put forward by critics of the Act. The Court noted that although its Commerce Clause jurisprudence throughout much of the last century had been notoriously expansive, even at its most expansive in cases like Wickard v. Filburn, it had always limited Congress to regulating preexisting activity. The ACA, by contrast, impermissibly attempted to reach inactivity. The Court refused to countenance such limitless congressional regulatory power.
Today’s ruling also includes an important precedent upholding the right of the States not to be coerced into administering federal regulatory programs. The Court held that the manner in which the ACA sought to expand Medicaid violates the Constitution and our nation’s system of federalism. The federal government may not bully the States into expanding Medicaid coverage by threatening to take away all preexisting Medicaid funding. As the federal government increasingly attempts to circumvent the Constitution by coercing States through funding threats, this aspect of the Court’s opinion may prove to have enormous significance.
For now, the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the ACA’s individual mandate as a tax puts the call to action squarely back on the people’s elected leaders in Congress. As the majority opinion reminded, the Court “possesses neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them.”
Without a single Republican vote, Congress enacted an intrusive and burdensome mandate on the American people—a mandate that is hugely unpopular and has the potential to do our country great harm. The individual mandate violates basic American freedoms and personal liberty in a way no Congress had before attempted in the 225 year-history of our Republic.
With a new administration and new leadership in Congress, we can repeal the ACA and restore individual liberty to all Americans.
Click here to read article as originally published in the National Review