The Post should send the Associated Press, the New York Times and other establishment press outlets which have yet to report what she found the bill for her work.
In the midst of the Obama administration's pre-Thanksgiving 3,415 regulations dump, McCaughey found several significant ObamaCare-related items, most of which in quainter times would have been considered illegal and unconstitutional overreaches:
The president rewrites the ObamaCare law — again◼ Betsy McCaughey: Obamacare Has Passed Into 'Lawlessness' - Newsmax
... the president is redefining what health plans are “adequate” for larger employers (100-plus workers) to offer under the Affordable Care Act. He’s also “asking” insurers to pay for new benefits — while warning that, if they don’t, they may be forced to.
Under the Constitution, Obama lacks any authority to make such changes to the health law, or any law. Only Congress has that power. But he’s doing it, and not for the first time.
The president has made two dozen changes to his health law by executive fiat, from delaying the employer mandate to allowing people to keep health plans that don’t meet ObamaCare standards.
... In any case, last week’s changes, like the president’s previous fixes, create new losers as well as winners — the sort of tradeoffs that legislators are supposed to weigh in our system of government. The basics:
Obama will require large employers to provide more coverage than the Affordable Care Act specifies. The move disqualifies plans now offered by 1,600 employers to 3 million workers, according to Kaiser Health News. Those employers will have to find a way to cover the higher costs — and some will surely do so by stopping coverage for spouses or part-time workers.
The new rules suddenly treat state high-risk pools as adequate coverage under the Affordable Care Act — a 180 from what the law actually says. When the ACA became law, these plans for people with chronic illnesses were offered in 35 states. Winners will be those who live in the 10 states that haven’t yet phased out their high-risk plans. Losers: the many thousands in 25 states that already gave up their plans to comply with the ACA’s mandates.
The rules tell insurers to give new enrollees a 30-day grace period during which they can continue to use doctors not in their plan’s network. Winners: people who need time to switch to in-network doctors. Losers: taxpayers — who’ll be obliged to bail out the insurers clobbered with the extra cost.
... the new Federal Register notices explicitly double down on the administration’s pledge to make insurers whole if losses are bigger than expected.
By repeatedly contradicting the letter of the Affordable Care Act, these new rules add to a pattern of lawlessness in implementing the health law ...
◼ The president rewrites the ObamaCare law — again - Betsy McCaughey/NY Post
By repeatedly contradicting the letter of the Affordable Care Act, these new rules add to a pattern of lawlessness in implementing the health law — even as the administration’s boldest misreading of the law is before the Supreme Court.
Two years after the justices ruled 5-4 to uphold ObamaCare’s individual mandate, the health law is back in front of the high court.
The issue this time, in King v. Burwell, is whether Obama is violating the law by handing out taxpayer-funded subsidies to ObamaCare enrollees in all 50 states. The letter of the law clearly allows subsidies only in the 14 states that established their own exchanges.
If the Supreme Court rules against the administration, enrollees would have to pay the actual cost of ObamaCare premiums — which would mean staggering hikes of 400 percent in many cases.
That could be the end of the president’s health law — or at least force him to actually negotiate with Congress on a complete rewrite tantamount to the Republicans’ “Repeal and replace” refrain.
