“Without [ObamaCare’s] premium support, premiums rise by nearly 45 percent, and enrollment falls…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Report: Without Subsidies, ObamaCare Enrollment in Death Spiral

“Without [ObamaCare’s] premium support, premiums rise by nearly 45 percent, and enrollment falls by nearly 70 percent,” says a report by RAND Health.

The analysis is part of an evaluation commissioned by the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the agency in charge of ObamaCare implementation.

The report’s publication follows on news that a federal district judge in Oklahoma ruled ObamaCare’s premium support (i.e. subsidies) mechanism is not available in states that use Healthcare.gov, the federal ObamaCare exchange. According to the text of the law, eligibility for subsidies depends on a citizen’s state operating its own exchange. If the law’s plain meaning is followed, RAND’s analysis will apply to citizens in more than half of the states.

The RAND…[more]

October 21, 2014 • 01:50 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Real Affirmative Action Starts with School Choice, Not Quotas Print
By Ashton Ellis
Thursday, July 07 2011
For most minority students, the option to choose better schools comes only with a government-sponsored voucher or a public school district that focuses on skills and knowledge rather than fads and liberal ideology.

The United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to prohibit Michigan’s ban on using race as a factor in college admissions highlights liberalism’s latest failure to achieve racial equality through education.  Instead of promoting policies that match students to schools where they will succeed, liberals prefer to rig a system guaranteed to turn affirmative action into a vehicle of failure for another generation of African American students. 

Recently, two of three judges on the Sixth Circuit ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause made unconstitutional the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI).  Itself a response to the Supreme Court’s 2003 “racial preferences” cases (also from Michigan), MCRI prohibited the state and its agencies from using race as a factor in making decisions about college admissions and government employment.  Passed in 2006, MCRI has enjoyed majority support in Michigan ever since. 

Then along came the affirmative action lobby.  By holding that the MCRI “unconstitutionally alters Michigan’s political structure by impermissibly burdening racial minorities,” the Sixth Circuit panel twisted the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection into a standard that requires unequal preferences. 

Though this case is surely headed to the Supreme Court, what should most animate conservatives in the meantime is the lie the opinion gives to the idea that liberals want real progress for racial minorities. 

The fatal flaw with affirmative action in education is that it attempts to solve a problem too late in the process. 

Affirmative action at the college admissions stage is too late to do much good for ill-prepared minority students.  The purpose of using affirmative action in college admissions is to tip the scales in favor of applicants who otherwise do not qualify to attend the university as students.  No one disputes this.  But failure to meet GPA and standardized test score requirements means that an affirmative action-admitted student is demonstrably less able to compete with other non-affirmative action students.  No wonder studies show that affirmative action students have a higher incidence of drop-outs than their peers.  The system made flunking out almost inevitable.  

To the extent government intervention is needed, it should occur much earlier in a minority student’s education.  Minority students don’t need help cutting in line with college admissions; they need help learning how to learn at the primary and secondary levels.  In short, minorities need better schools. 

Unfortunately, minority students and their families can’t get access to better schools because liberal teachers’ unions are standing athwart progress.  For most minority students, the option to choose better schools comes only with a government-sponsored voucher or a public school district that focuses on skills and knowledge rather than fads and liberal ideology. 

To their shame, teachers’ unions oppose vouchers because vouchers increase competition while lowering the costs of education.  Fearing this, unions actively work to impede the kind of improvements in education – vouchers, charter schools – that would get minority students performing at the level of their non-minority peers.  School choice is true “affirmative action” because it gives kids the opportunity to get the kind of education in life and learning necessary to succeed on merit when it comes to college admissions. 

And if federal actors like those at the Sixth Circuit and the Democrats who killed D.C.’s school voucher program don’t get it, conservatives in state governments across the country certainly do.  Indiana, North Carolina and Colorado introduced large-scale school choice programs this year.  Florida and Ohio broadened their voucher programs to include special-needs students.  Even California now permits parents to “trigger” a change in administration and policy at the local level through a petition drive. 

As usual, the most consequential policy innovations are coming from the states.  Governments that promote school vouchers are part of a growing trend towards real affirmative action: empowering students of all racial and income types to select the primary and secondary education of their choice. 

If states can just get the liberals in the federal government to stop meddling, students may get what every parent wants – a shot at a real education.

Question of the Week   
Which of the following Cold War events led to the establishment of the “Hotline,” a direct telephone link between the White House and the Kremlin?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"The public-health profession has a clear political orientation, so it's quite possible that its opposition to a visa and travel moratorium is influenced as much by belief in America's responsibility for the postcolonial oppression of Africa, and suspicion of American border enforcement, as it is by a commitment to public-health principles of containment and control. (African countries, unburdened…[more]
 
 
—Heather Mac Donald, Manhattan Institute Fellow and City Journal Contributing Editor
— Heather Mac Donald, Manhattan Institute Fellow and City Journal Contributing Editor
 
Liberty Poll   

In dealing with deadly and difficult-to-curtail infectious diseases such as Ebola, should government-imposed travel bans and quarantines supersede civil liberty and other concerns?