Steel tariffs won't help national defense. | Medicare needs fixing, too. | Emoluments Clause suits are frivolous. | Division in the Gulf does not help the United States. | Benefit mandates drive health care costs.
 |
|---|
June 17, 2017 |
If steel is important to the national defense, then putting tariffs on it is the opposite of what we should be doing. Congress isn’t talking about Medicare right now, but eventually it will have to reform the program for seniors as well. The Emoluments Clause lawsuits have no merit. Division among the Gulf States does not help U.S. interests. Insurance market mandates are a major source of high health insurance costs, and the problem isn’t just Obamacare. |
|
If steel is important to the national defense, then putting tariffs on it is the opposite of what we should be doing. Yet that is precisely what the Department of Commerce is contemplating through it’s so-called “Section 232” investigation. Tori Whiting and Rachel Zissimos explain: “Steel is a vital commodity for America’s manufacturing and construction sectors, and steel imports play a vital role in many supply chains supporting the defense industry. Imposing tariffs under Section 232 would increase the cost of one of the most crucial intermediate goods for these two American industries […] . […] “There are more than 100,000 companies and many more subcontractors who provide products or services to the Department of Defense (DOD).These companies, which form the U.S. defense industrial base (DIB), rely on steel as a critical input for many defense products and systems from missiles to aircraft carriers. However, unlike dependence on Russian rocket engines (for which few alternatives exist) or Chinese microchips (which can be infected or counterfeited), steel imports do not present the same vulnerabilities or technological sensitivities. There is not an inherent threat in steel imports, but rather a vague concern regarding availability of supply. “The link to national security has also been used in attempts to justify domestic renewable energy production, given the military’s practical reliance on foreign oil. However, as is the case with oil, steel is not in short supply, and demand for imports driven by cost considerations should not be mistaken for vulnerability. Products that are neither scarce nor technologically sensitive do not pose a threat to national security and do not warrant these industry protections.” [Internal citations omitted.] [The Heritage Foundation]
Medicare has problems, too. Insurance market rules and Medicaid are the focus of current efforts to repeal Obamacare. But, because of its costs and because of the way it sets the terms under which health care is organized, Medicare will eventually have to be reformed, too, writes James Capretta. A good place to start, he argues, is to recast the Obama administration’s attempts at Medicare “delivery service reform”: “The centerpiece of the delivery system reform effort is the Accountable Care Organizations (ACO) initiative. These are provider-led organizations aimed at improving the management of care for beneficiaries enrolled in the traditional Medicare fee-for-service program. ACOs that successfully lower costs and meet quality goals are eligible for bonus payments. “The ACO effort has fallen short of the lofty goals set for it. In 2015, the ACO effort increased overall program spending by a modest amount instead of reducing it. The basic problem with the ACO program is that it is designed to avoid consumer choice and engagement, which is the opposite of what is needed. Under current rules, beneficiaries are assigned to an ACO if their primary physician participates in it. “There is a place for a provider-led integrated care option in Medicare, but it should be offered to the beneficiaries as an option for enrollment, alongside the Medicare Advantage (MA) plans and unmanaged fee-for-service. If an ACO is able to cut costs, beneficiaries should be given an incentive to join it through a reduction in their monthly premiums. “Recasting the ACO program – with a new name, such as Medicare provider networks – should be part of a broader effort to improve and clarify the choices available to the beneficiaries, with the aim of intensifying competition and lowering costs. The Medicare program should ensure that beneficiaries are able to see clearly and easily the overall cost of various combinations of coverage. In particular, beneficiaries should be able to select combinations of basic Medicare coverage, plus a drug benefit, and supplement insurance with a full view of the financial consequences of the various options. That cannot be done today.” [American Enterprise Institute]
The Emoluments Clause lawsuits have no merit. A number of citizens and organizations, as well as the District of Columbia and Maryland, have sued alleging that President Trump has violated the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. Those lawsuits, writes Ilya Shapiro, are “frivolous,” “nonsense,” and “a waste of time and resources”: “[T]he Emoluments Clause is a stopgap against the risk that foreign powers will try to curry favor by bribing U.S. officials with gifts and other baubles. (Maybe even titles of nobility, which are prohibited for all Americans by another constitutional provision.) To be sure, a politically motivated decision by a foreign government to give preferential permitting or land acquisition terms to a Trump construction project could be a favor worth millions of dollars. “But is booking suites at a Trump hotel or holding a conference at another Trump facility really a bribe? So long as payments are made at market rates – not ‘here’s 100 million dollars for a room with a view’ – I don’t see how they could. Whatever the Emoluments Clause protects against, arms-length business transactions ain’t it. “Indeed, to hold to the contrary would be to disqualify businessmen with a diversified portfolio from the White House. That can’t be the case; George Washington himself was a wealthy landholder who engaged in business with foreign nationals.” [Cato Institute]
Division among the Gulf States does not help U.S. interests. Lee Smith writes: “Trump’s visit to Riyadh was a success, it was the aftermath that was a problem. While there, he enlisted the support of Arab and Muslim leaders in the fight against terrorism. From the perspective of the Saudis and others, Trump’s promise to forswear interference in their societies marked a welcome change from the last two administrations—and was likely read by them as a green light to sort out local affairs, starting with Qatar. His tweet two weeks after his visit confirmed that. ‘During my recent trip to the Middle East I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical Ideology. Leaders pointed to Qatar—look!’ “‘Obama protected Doha,’ the Saudi analyst explained. ‘He used them to keep the Saudis off balance, but now that he’s gone the Qataris lost their defender.’ The point is not that Trump should likewise shield an adventurist Doha but that it’s probably not prudent to widen the natural rift in the GCC, an institution designed to project American power in the Persian Gulf. Further, when you have problems with an ally, scream at them in private, rather than chide them in front of the world. […] “Trump later walked back his tweet and in a phone call with the Qatari emir offered to mediate the crisis, even if it takes a White House meeting. What’s most important, however, is that the administration doesn’t let local players, whether that’s Qatar or the UAE or Saudi Arabia, set American priorities. Intra-Arab conflict should not distract the administration from keeping regional partners focused on the two key issues on the U.S. agenda— stopping Iran and crushing ISIS.” [Hudson Institute]
Insurance market mandates are a major source of high health insurance costs, and the problem isn’t just Obamacare. Katherine Restrepo writes: “Federal intervention accelerated in 1996 under the Newborns and Mothers’ Health Protection Act and the Mental Health Parity Act. These laws specified that, if health plans offered hospitalization care, they were required to cover a minimum length of stay for postpartum women. Additionally, if insurance carriers sold plans that included mental health treatment, those benefits could not be less favorable to the plans’ medical and surgical benefits in terms of out-of-pocket spending and scope of network providers. The Mental Health Parity Act was modified in 2008, requiring employers to offer comparable substance abuse services if they choose to provide mental health benefits for employees. “The passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2010 further extended the federal government’s authority over the insurance industry by enforcing limits on out-of-pocket cost sharing for policyholders who access certain treatments that fall under the law’s 10 categories of Essential Health Benefits (EHBs). Required services range from maternity and newborn care to chronic disease management. Section 2713 of the ACA further outlines that policyholders in the individual and group markets can access a variety of preventative services with zero out-of-pocket cost sharing. […] “Government mandates come with a cost. According to the Council for Affordable Health Insurance, health benefit mandates are one of the reasons why insurance premiums rose between 20 and 50 percent in recent years. Data provided by the North Carolina Coalition for Fiscal Health estimate that mandates cost North Carolina policyholders in the individual and small-group insurance markets over $218 million per year. […] “During the 2015 session of the N.C. General Assembly, five mandate bills were pending to expand coverage for oral cancer drugs, autism therapy, and chiropractic care. The Associated Press reported that, if all passed, policyholders would face a 16 percent health insurance rate increase on top of double-digit premium hikes for policyholders who buy their health insurance through the ACA’s Exchange.” [Internal citations omitted.] [John Locke Foundation]
|
 The Heritage Foundation |
| Add info@heritage.org to your address book to ensure that you receive emails from us. You are subscribed to this newsletter as johnmhames@comcast.net. If you want to receive other Heritage Foundation newsletters, or opt out of this newsletter, please click here to update your subscription. |
-
Comments
Post a Comment