Stop Health Care Taxes dot com

By Steve Buckstein

The Oregon legislature just passed, and the Governor signed, a bill designed to generate some $550 million in new taxes on health care, hospitals, and health insurance premiums. Ostensibly, this money is needed to help balance the budget, even after strong revenue growth, and to help maintain the controversial Medicaid expansion.

According to an Oregonian editorial, when word got out that someone might refer these new taxes to the ballot, legislative leaders showed “how they’re willing to protect that new revenue at all cost—even hijacking the referendum process at the core of Oregon’s identity.”

“Worse, however, the bill tosses aside the usual process requiring impartial groups to describe the measure on the ballot and in the voter’s pamphlet. Instead, [they gave] all that power to a committee made up of four Democrats and two Republicans.”

They also moved the referendum vote up from November 2018 to a January special election that will cost taxpayers more than $3 million.

The petitioners have just 90 days to collect nearly 59,000 valid voter signatures to refer the most egregious of these new taxes to the ballot.

These allow insurance companies to pass on to many of us, their policyholders, a new 1.5 percent tax on health insurance premiums in the state, at a time when premiums are rising out of sight already.

If you want to vote on the new premium taxes, go to StopHealthCareTaxes.com, download, sign and return a Petition sheet today.


Steve Buckstein is Senior Policy Analyst and Founder of Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market public policy research organization.

Testimony Before the House Committee on Health Care in Support of HB 2128

To: Chairman Greenlick and members of the House Committee on Health Care

From: Steve Buckstein, Senior Policy Analyst and Founder, Cascade Policy Institute, a non-profit, non-partisan public policy research organization based in Portland

HB 2128 is a common-sense response to Oregon’s overreach when it became the first state to require a prescription for drugs containing pseudoephedrine in 2006. Only Mississippi has followed our lead.

While our prescription-only law was meant to reduce the incidence of meth labs in the state, federal government data show that by the time our law went into effect, we had already seen an 89 percent drop in the previous two years. Why? Because Oregon adopted its earlier behind-the-counter law for pseudoephedrine drugs in 2004.

As federal data in Figure 1 of Cascade Policy Institute’s 2012 study show, Oregon reported 467 meth lab incidents in 2004, and just 50 by 2006. By 2010 we reported 12 meth lab incidents. So, the overwhelming drop came before our prescription-only law even went into effect. As shown in Figure 1, our two neighboring states of Washington and California showed similar declines over the same period; and they only put these drugs behind the counter, as all states were required to do by federal law starting in 2006.

While I don’t have access to the meth lab incident data from more current years, we do know that according to recent reports from the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, 99.8 percent of meth seized in the United States in 2015 was produced in Mexico.

Let’s be clear: Neither putting pseudoephedrine drugs behind the counter nor making them prescription-only did anything to reduce meth use and abuse.

Requiring prescriptions simply inconveniences Oregonians who want to treat minor cold or seasonal allergy symptoms, something consumers in 48 other states don’t have to bother with.

Oregonians have to make an appointment, take time off work to visit their doctor, ask for a prescription, and then go to the pharmacy to buy a product they previously could purchase by just asking their pharmacist.

A 2014 study found that this prescription requirement increased consumer prices for these drugs by 35 percent.

Making pseudoephedrine Rx-only is also likely to result in some patients relying on less effective treatments or avoiding treatment altogether due to additional cost and hassle. This could result in more lost work time for individuals and lost productivity for employers.

It’s time to recognize that we solved most of the meth lab problem by placing these drugs behind the counter in 2004. We didn’t need to overreach with our prescription-only law in 2006.

It’s time to repeal the prescription-only restriction and let honest consumers buy the cold and allergy medicines they prefer, just like people in 48 other states.

Thank you.

Click here for Figure 1 of Cascade Policy Institute’s 2012 study

Testimony Before the House Committee on Revenue in Opposition to Tobacco and Inhalant Nicotine Tax Bills

To: Chair Barnhart and members of the House Committee on Revenue

From: Steve Buckstein, Senior Policy Analyst and Founder of Cascade Policy Institute, a Portland-based non-partisan, non-profit public policy research organization

Re: Tobacco taxes and inhalant nicotine taxes proposed in
HB 2037, HB 2056, HB 2062, HB 2084, HB 2119, HB 2662, and HB 3178

Why the state should not depend on increased sin taxes

  • Oregon’s addiction to tobacco/nicotine revenues will only grow if we become more dependent on them to fund new or existing programs.
  • Taxes on alcohol and tobacco are frequently justified as a means of discouraging “unhealthy” behavior. But this objective quickly gives way to a different one: raising revenue. This creates a “moral hazard” problem: sin taxes cannot simultaneously both discourage consumption and raise more revenue. For one to succeed, the other must fail.
  • As cigarette smoking continues to decline, tobacco taxes will continue to shrink, punching one more hole in future state budgets.

The regressivity of Sin Taxes

Paying for any state programs by taxing smokers may make some program recipients better off, but it will also make smokers and their families worse off.  As you may know:

  • Cigarette smoking adults are more likely to be uninsured than non-smoking adults.
  • Cigarette smokers are in poorer physical condition than non-smokers.
  • Cigarette smokers generally have lower incomes and less formal education than non-smokers.
  • Cigarette smokers are more likely to be unemployed or unemployable than non-smokers.

Policy option:

Currently, less than eight percent of Oregon tobacco taxes are used for the Tobacco Use Reduction Program. Funding other state programs through cigarette, tobacco and/or nicotine taxes is very regressive, targeting less educated, lower income and sicker Oregonians. If anything, these taxes should be reduced, not increased.

Oregon Leaders Must Reject ACA’s Medicaid Expansion

By Eric Fruits, Ph.D.

Despite an eight percent increase in general fund revenues, Governor Kate Brown and some lawmakers say the State of Oregon is facing a $1.7 billion budget shortfall in the 2017-19 biennium. In her inaugural address, the governor blames more than $1 billion of the shortfall on the state’s choice to expand Medicaid and other taxpayer-funded insurance. The Census Bureau estimates that about one in four Oregonians are in the state’s Medicaid program.

In addition to the expansion provided by the Affordable Care Act, the governor seeks new state money to expand single-payer public insurance to those who are not “lawfully present” in the United States, under a program called Cover All Kids.

Although the federal government pays a large portion of the costs of Medicaid expansion, the state’s share of the costs is growing under the ACA. The huge costs of Medicaid mean even a small increase in Oregon’s share has big impacts on the state’s budget. State Senator Elizabeth Steiner Hayward, incoming co-chair of the Ways and Means Committee for Human Services indicates that about one-third of the deficit at the Oregon Health Authority comes from what she called a “minuscule” reduction in the federal match. This deficit is certain to grow as federal support for expansion shrinks over time, as outlined in the ACA.

The state has massively underestimated the costs of Medicaid expansion in Oregon. A 2013 report prepared for the state estimated that the Medicaid expansion would cost Oregon’s general fund $217 million in the upcoming 2017-19 biennium. Janelle Evans, budget director for the Oregon Health Authority, now estimates a cost to the state’s general fund of at least $353 million. For the federal government, the cost of Oregon’s Medicaid expansion will cost more than $3.5 billion over the next two years.

Oregon simply cannot afford the ACA’s Medicaid expansion and Governor Brown’s expensive new entitlement. Nationally, expansion costs and enrollment have grown much faster than projected. Previous expansions of the Medicaid program have resulted in crowding out, the process by which taxpayer funded Medicaid replaces private health insurance. These earlier expansions have seen crowd-out rates ranging from 15 percent to 50 percent, depending on the type of expansion. Not only does the expansion crowd out private insurance, government spending on the expansion crowds out funding for other state and national priorities, such as education, infrastructure, and defense.

In Congress, repeal of much of the ACA is imminent. Oregon Congressman Greg Walden, incoming chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is working on a timeline for repealing major provisions of the health care law, including the expansion of Medicaid. In the absence of repeal, Congress should consider an enrollment freeze approach. A freeze would halt new enrollment while allowing current enrollees to stay in the program until their incomes climb above eligibility limits. It would be an intermediate step towards repeal with immediate benefits for taxpayers and current enrollees.

However repeal of the ACA rolls out, Oregon’s congressional delegation should be at the forefront of ending the Medicaid expansion as soon as possible. While Congress works through the details, Oregon can take steps in the upcoming legislative session to protect the state’s fragile finances. One first step would be to opt out of the ACA’s Medicaid expansion and reject Governor Brown’s proposal to expand coverage even further. As noted in the governor’s inaugural address, the state’s choice to expand Medicaid is the single largest source of the impending budget deficit. Rejecting the health care law’s expansion is the clearest path to fiscal solvency and financial responsibility.


Eric Fruits, Ph.D. is president and chief economist at Economics International Corp., an Oregon based consulting firm specializing in economics, finance, and statistics. He is also an adjunct professor of economics at Portland State University, an Academic Advisor to Cascade Policy Institute, and author of Cascade’s report, The Oregon Health Plan: A “Bold Experiment” That FailedThis article originally appeared in The Oregonian on January 27, 2017.

What Would Jefferson Advise Today’s Supreme Court About the Little Sisters of the Poor?

In 1804 an Ursuline nun in New Orleans asked Thomas Jefferson to clarify in writing her religious community’s right to retain their property and to continue their ministries without government interference following the Louisiana Purchase. As French Catholic Louisiana was being incorporated into the Anglo-Protestant United States, the nuns were concerned about the status of their institutions under U.S. law. President Jefferson assured her that the government would not interfere with the sisters’ property, ministries, and way of life. In a letter dated May 15, 1804, he wrote:

“I have received, holy sisters, the letter you have written me wherein you express anxiety for the property vested in your institution….The principles of the constitution and government of the United States are a guarantee to you that it will be preserved to you, sacred and inviolate, and that your institution will be permitted to govern itself according to its own voluntary rules, without interference from the civil authority.”

Jefferson confidently promised that the American Constitution would protect the nuns and that the government would leave them alone. So why don’t Catholic sisters today even qualify for a religious exemption from ObamaCare’s insurance mandate that requires contraception and abortion coverage? It may seem unbelievable, but according to the Obama Administration’s definition of “religious employer,” sisters are not included.

On March 23 the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on behalf the Little Sisters of the Poor (and other religious clients of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty) in a historic religious freedom case. The Little Sisters are a nearly 200-year-old religious community dedicated to caring for the elderly poor. They run 30 homes in the U.S. (four in the West) and care for nearly 13,000 people in 31 countries.

During implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) directed most employers to include coverage of contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs in their employee health insurance policies, or else pay a fine of $100 per employee, per day. The Sisters subsequently filed suit against the federal government, saying “they cannot, according to their faith, include contraceptives in their employee health plan.”

The Becket Fund, which represents the Sisters and other religious clients in their lawsuit, explains:

“The Court’s decision will finally resolve the crucial question of whether governmental agencies can, wholly without legislative oversight, needlessly force religious ministries to violate their faith….The [HHS] mandate forces the Little Sisters to authorize the government to use the Sisters’ employee healthcare plan to provide contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs—a violation of their faith—or pay massive fines, which would threaten their religious mission.”

The “HHS Mandate” has a narrow conscience exemption that applies only to organizations whose purpose is solely to inculcate religious values and which employ and serve primarily members of their own faith. The exemption does not include religiously affiliated or faith-based institutions which serve all people without discrimination (like hospitals, colleges, schools, and social service agencies). And it doesn’t apply to communities of nuns.

“The Little Sisters should not have to fight their own government to get an exemption it has already given to thousands of other employers, including Exxon, Pepsi Cola Bottling Company, and Boeing,” said Becket Fund Senior Counsel Mark Rienzi. “Nor should the government be allowed to say that the Sisters aren’t ‘religious enough’ to merit the exemption that churches and other religious ministries have received….It is ridiculous for the federal government to claim, in this day and age, that it can’t figure out how to distribute contraceptives without involving nuns and their health plans.”

Thomas Jefferson explained to the Ursuline nuns of 19th-century Louisiana that American law would protect them and their institutions, regardless of the differences among American citizens:

“Whatever the diversity of shade may appear in the religious opinions of our fellow citizens, the charitable objects of your institution cannot be indifferent to any; and its furtherance of the wholesome purposes of society, by training up its younger members in the way they should go, cannot fail to ensure it the patronage of the government it is under. Be assured it will meet all the protection which my office can give it.”

We can only imagine what Jefferson might think of American women having to sue the Obama Administration to defend their First Amendment rights. But can we doubt he would be dismayed by how intrusive and coercive the federal government has become since the day he wrote so cordially to a group of French nuns about the safeguards of the American Constitution?

 

The Jayne Carroll Show Interviews Jared Meyer on Washington’s Betrayal of America’s Young People

Guest host Aaron Stevens interviewed the Manhattan Institute’s Jared Meyer on The Jayne Carroll Show (1360 AM KUIK) on October 21. In this 8-minute interview, Jared talks about how entitlement programs and the Affordable Care Act disadvantage young people to benefit those with much higher net worth. If you missed Jared’s fantastic presentation at Ernesto’s Italian Restaurant on Thursday night, you can hear his radio discussion with Aaron here.

How Washington Is Disinheriting American Kids

By Jared Meyer and Kathryn Hickok

Is Washington, D.C. disinheriting America’s kids? You bet. Achieving the American Dream will be more difficult for the next generation because policies and programs created by politicians and bureaucrats in Washington restrict economic opportunity for the young.

The expansion of entitlement benefits and government services places a major future financial burden on the young. The federal government’s $18 trillion debt is only the tip of the iceberg. Unfunded liabilities driven by Social Security and Medicare push the total federal fiscal shortfall to more than $200 trillion.

The Affordable Care Act has raised health insurance premiums for younger adults. While people under 30 only spend an average of $600 a year on health care, young people cannot pay less than one-third of what older people pay.

And these are only two examples of the financial burden our government is placing on the next generation.

Many think a larger government, and higher taxes to pay for it, would benefit young people. This isn’t true. The key to restoring Millennials’ lost economic opportunity is for government to get out of people’s way.

Washington is robbing America’s young. Our country is facing a crisis, and change is essential for young people to achieve the kind of future their parents and grandparents worked hard to build. Otherwise, the bill will eventually come due, and the next generation will pick up the tab.

Jared Meyer is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research and the coauthor with Diana Furchtgott-Roth of Disinherited: How Washington Is Betraying America’s Young (Encounter Books, May 2015). Cascade Policy Institute will host Meyer to speak on this topic in Portland on October 22, 2015. Kathryn Hickok is Publications Director at Cascade Policy Institute.

Washington’s War on Millennials

By Jared Meyer

Tens of millions of Americans are between the ages of 18 and 30, and achieving success will be more difficult for these so-called Millennials than it was for young people in the past. This is because politicians and bureaucrats in Washington have put in place policies that restrict economic opportunity for the young.

It does not have to be this way.

Washington’s expansion of entitlement benefits and other government services places a major future financial burden on the young—one that many did not even vote for. The federal government has a debt of $18 trillion, but this is only the tip of the iceberg. Unfunded liabilities driven by Social Security and Medicare push the total federal fiscal shortfall to more than $200 trillion.

As if this were not enough, the Affordable Care Act has raised health insurance premiums for the young in an effort to pay for older Americans’ health care. Now, even though people under 30 only spend an average of $600 a year on health care, young people cannot pay less than one-third of what older people pay.

In elementary and secondary school, ineffective teachers are protected from being fired. This serves the interests of older teachers and their unions, but it harms those who would benefit from high-quality teachers. Common-sense reforms to improve education outcomes such as vouchers and charter schools are consistently opposed by teachers unions.

In their college years, young people are encouraged to attend a university even though four in ten college freshmen fail to graduate within six years. The current system of excessive federal student aid raises the cost of college tuition, which forces students to take on mountains of debt.

As if this were not enough, after high school or college graduation, Washington and state governments prevent young people from entering the job market. Occupational licensing requirements are meant to protect public safety, but often they mostly protect established businesses and workers. This comes at the expense of everyday consumers, entrepreneurs, and young workers, as unnecessary licensing makes many promising career paths too prohibitively expensive or time-consuming to enter.

Minimum wage laws, though they may seem well intentioned, make it more difficult for young and low-skilled workers to acquire valuable experience. Again, the government is telling young people that they are not free to work. Destructive labor-market laws need to be scaled back so that the first step on the career ladder can again be within reach.

Some think that if government were larger and gave more handouts, and taxes were raised to pay for these programs, then young people would do better. However, this would only make matters worse. Government tends to pick winners and losers, and the politically unorganized young are ineffective at lobbying for their interests. The key to restoring Millennials’ lost economic opportunity is for government to get out of their way.

Washington is robbing America’s young. Our country is facing a crisis, and change is essential for young people to achieve the future they deserve.

Jared Meyer is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research and the coauthor with Diana Furchtgott-Roth of Disinherited: How Washington Is Betraying America’s Young (Encounter Books, May 2015). Cascade Policy Institute will host Meyer to speak on this topic in Portland on Thursday evening, October 22. This article was originally published by The Salem Statesman Journal.

Disinherited: How Washington Is Betraying America’s Young

Cascade Policy Institute

presents

Disinherited: How Washington Is Betraying America’s Young

Jared Meyer

Jared Meyer

 

Fellow, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research

Author of Disinherited: How Washington Is Betraying America’s Young

 

For Millennials, achieving success will be more difficult than it was for young Americans in the past. This is because Washington made decisions that render their lives more difficult than those of their parents or grandparents. Too many public primary and secondary schools are failing their students, college graduates are saddled with heavy debt burdens, and labor market restrictions keep young Americans from building their careers. Meanwhile, Washington expects Millennials to pay higher taxes for government entitlement and health care programs that benefit middle-aged and older Americans, most of whom have better jobs and more assets. It is time to address the crisis facing America’s young. The future of America can be saved, but only if Washington’s betrayal comes to an end.

This special event is a critical talk for Millennials, Gen Xers, Baby Boomers, and the Greatest Generation. Jared Meyer is a fantastic, engaging young speaker. His presentation is designed to bring all the generations together to promote a path to preserving our American way of life for years to come. Bring your kids; bring your grandkids; young adults, bring your grandparents!

Jared Meyer is a fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. His research interests include microeconomic theory and the economic effects of government regulations. Meyer is the coauthor along with Diana Furchtgott-Roth of Disinherited: How Washington Is Betraying America’s Young (Encounter Books, May 2015). His research has been published in numerous publications, including The Wall Street Journal, Yahoo! Finance, RealClearPolitics, City Journal, and New York Post. Meyer has appeared on numerous radio and television shows, including the BBC World Service, NPR, Fox News, and CSPAN. He received a B.S. in finance and a minor in the philosophy of law from St. John’s University in New York. Follow him on Twitter @JaredMeyer10.

 

$25 ticket price includes a delicious Italian Buffet:

salad, two pasta choices, entree, bread, coffee, tea or soda

No-host bar (cash only)

Event Sponsors

Cascade Policy Institute

***

Cascade Policy Institute is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. Donations are tax deductible and accepted with gratitude.

Taxpayers Ultimately Get the Bill for Oregon’s Medicaid Expansion

By Thomas Tullis

Thirty states have already undertaken the Medicaid expansion encouraged by the Affordable Care Act. In Oregon, more than one in 4 people are now enrolled in Medicaid. Enrollment is nearly twice as high as originally thought, and now lawmakers are looking at a half-billion-dollar state deficit after grossly miscalculating the projection.

In an attempt to reconcile the $300 million Cover Oregon fiasco, the Kitzhaber administration had centered in on fast-track Medicaid enrollment. Oregonians were incentivized and encouraged to sign up for Medicaid, with ObamaCare extending the eligibility requirements to adults earning up to 138% of the federal poverty level.

With the expansion’s 76% increase in monthly enrollment, Oregon’s growth is second only to Kentucky. While many states have not expanded and have seen little to no growth in enrollment, Oregon boasts some of the highest percentages of average annual growth in Medicaid spending over the last few years.

As the federal government will soon require Oregon and other states to be responsible for part of Medicaid costs, lawmakers are already talking about increasing the nearly two-billion-dollar bipartisan hospital tax that Governor Kate Brown signed in March.

Health insurance policy is in desperate need of market-based reforms. A competitive free market can ensure quality and affordability. Government handouts and regulations simply drive up costs that in this case will be borne by taxpayers.

Thomas Tullis is a research associate at Cascade Policy Institute, Oregon’s free market think tank. He is a student at the University of Oregon, where he is studying Journalism and Political Science.

1 2 3 12