House and Senate leaders may disagree on how to fix Obamacare, but they certainly don’t dispute why. After seven years, the only thing higher than the costs of the Left’s health care law may be the mounds of evidence about its failures. Already, families are bracing themselves for Jan. 1, when experts warn that most Americans will wake up with a headache — and not from a lack of sleep from the night before.

When the Times Square ball drops, premiums won’t. In fact, the first day of 2018 may trigger one of the steepest rises in health care premiums the country has faced. For the 39 states that have stuck it out on the Obamacare exchange, they’ll ring in the New Year by wringing out their wallets — most facing a 34 percent spike in premiums, and climbing. Although the pain will be passed on to almost every customer, analysts say the middle class will be squeezed the most. Like most people, insurers understand that Obamacare is a sinking ship, and they’re doing everything they can, The Wall Street Journal points out, to “hedg[e] against broader uncertainty around other aspects of the Affordable Care Act, and my market conditions.”

Others have outright left the exchange, blowing a big hole in the number of plans consumers could pick from. “The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has estimated that 46 percent of Americans live in counties that will lose at least one exchange insurer next year.” Others are losing their plans entirely, news many of them are just getting in the mail. “Time to shop for new coverage,” their letters read. In some pockets of the country, like Virginia, people who had as many as 14 policy options last year are down to two (which also happen to cost $150 more a month).

So, while some may want to steer Congress away from the failed Obamacare debate into the greener pastures of tax reform, there are still Republicans who are trying to solve the looming crisis and give Americans some relief. Two of Congress’s key moneymen, House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-TX) and Senate Finance Chair Orrin Hatch (R-UT), are the latest to offer up a proposal that deals with some of the worst aspects of Obamacare — and, unlike the Lamar Alexander-Patty Murray deal, leaves no doubt about one of the biggest concerns: abortion. From its very first bullet point, Hatch and Brady explain that their “bicameral agreement” would fund cost savings reductions (CSRs) through 2019 “with pro-life protections.” That was a problem many of us had with the Alexander-Murray idea, since nothing in the plan addressed one of voters’ key priorities — ending the forced partnership between taxpayers and the abortion industry.

“What we’re proposing not only helps treat some of Obamacare’s symptoms: rising premiums, fewer choices, and uncertainty and instability,” Rep. Brady explained. “It takes steps to cure Obamacare’s underlying illness through patient-centered reforms that deliver relief from federal mandates, protect life, and increase choices in health care.” Like other bills, it would eliminate Obamacare’s individual and employer mandates, expand health savings accounts, and fund the cost-sharing program for two years — a move, Politico explains, “designed to appeal to Republicans who want to fund the Obamacare program but feel that Alexander didn’t get enough conservative concessions in his negotiations with Murray.”

Its biggest obstacle, apart from getting time on a busy congressional calendar, is that the duo will be introducing it as a standalone bill, meaning that it would need help from Democrats to pass. But if the Obamacare implosion continues, even they’ll have to concede that something needs to be done. And soon.

Originally published here.

HHS Asks You: How Are We Doing?

Under the eight years of President Obama, faith-based groups certainly heard from the government — but it was rarely good news. In two terms, the administration was more interested in punishing these organizations than partnering with them. That all changed under President Trump, who’s made it clear that churches and religious outreach are a vital part not just of America but of serving Americans. Nowhere is that clearer than the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which leans on groups like Catholic Charities to help deliver everything from health care, food, and family support to addiction recovery and adoption placement.

In another massive departure from the Obama years, Trump’s team is asking an important question of those groups: How can we make working with HHS easier? This week, the agency made that inquiry official, posting it for public comment over the next 30 days. Their goal is an admirable one: They want to identify areas where regulations or other barriers make partnering with HHS difficult. Like most conservatives, they understand how invaluable it is to have faith-based groups on the ground providing services where the government can’t — or, in some cases, isn’t as effective. And they don’t want to miss the opportunity to maximize that effectiveness, especially after Obama’s intentional effects to marginalize the work of the church.

You can help open the door that the last administration tried to shut by heeding HHS’s call for feedback. Unfortunately, because of Obama’s hostility toward faith-based work, there are plenty of areas that could stand to be cleaned up by Trump’s team — including a whole slate of regulations that made it impossible for religious organizations to work with a clear conscience. Our government affairs team ticked off a number of them that you can use in responding, most of which you’ve been reading about (and combating personally) for years!

For starters, we all remember when Barack Obama rolled back the conscience regulations George W. Bush implemented to enforce several long-standing federal conscience laws for health care providers. Doing so opened the door to government discrimination against pro-life medical providers in which the government could force them to choose between their jobs and their moral convictions on procedures like abortion or drugs and devices that can destroy human embryos. It’s time for those conscience rights regulations to be restored to everyone in the medical field.

Secondly, HHS can specifically enforce the Weldon Amendment, which prohibits government entities from discriminating against pro-life health care providers when it comes to elective abortion. Under the last administration, Obama’s HHS also conveniently reinterpreted that Weldon text, refusing to stop states like California (which receive federal funds) from mandating health care coverage of abortion, even for employees in churches. The government needs to hold these states accountable for violating the Weldon Amendment and harming pro-lifers.

Then, HHS ought to move to end Obama’s radical social agenda in Obamacare’s Section 1557. For those of you who don’t have it memorized (like our government affairs team), this is the ongoing battle to stop liberals from redefining “sex discrimination” to mean “gender identity” and “pregnancy termination.” Already, conservatives are suing to stop this ridiculous and sweeping application of a law that has nothing to do with transgender or abortion politics. Right now, the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty is defending the Franciscan Alliance, a religious hospital network, and the Christian Medical Associations (with over 18,000 doctors) in court because they refuse to offer things like sex change operations — something Obama’s regulation would force faith-based groups to do, regardless of their beliefs!

These and other changes would go a long way to restoring HHS to the community partners religious organizations have always counted on them to be. Do your part to make them happen! Click here to add your comments!

Originally published here.

Best Bye: Controversial Texas Speaker to Exit in ‘18

When people walk away from a job, it can be bittersweet. But in Texas House Speaker Joe Straus’s case, the celebrations have already begun! The moderate Republican, who stood in the way of his party’s push to protect privacy, announced this week that he won’t seek re-election. It was welcome news for the state’s conservatives, who’ve watched with frustration as Straus ridiculed, blocked, and mischaracterized legislation that voters across the state supported.

After months of angering his party’s top officials, Straus probably saw the writing on the wall for 2018, when he would have faced a serious fight to keep his job. Tempers have been boiling since Texas’s special session this fall, when Straus vowed to kill a bill that would have protected women and children in the state’s bathrooms, locker rooms, changing rooms, and showers. His stance, which pit him against Gov. Greg Abbott (R) and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R), was hugely unpopular with voters — who eventually saw him as a bigger obstacle to their agenda than most Democrats.

“I believe that in a representative democracy, those who serve in public office should do so for a time, not a lifetime. And so I want you to know that my family and I have decided that I will not run for re-election next year,” the speaker said in a campaign email. Sweetening the news for conservatives, Straus’s co-conspirator, Rep. Byron Cook (R) — who also tried to sink the privacy push — made a similar announcement, saying he would “pursue other opportunities to serve our great state.”

Although it will be awhile until the Texas GOP can capitalize on the two men’s absence, it was certainly in keeping with the party’s other moderates, who all seem to be looking for the exits. On a national level, voters have watched a parade of less conservative Republicans — Senators Jeff Flake (R-AZ.), Bob Corker (R-TN.), and Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA) — walk away from jobs that may have been in serious jeopardy come next year’s election. It’s a positive sign for conservatives, who’ve watched these RINOs spoil progress on everything from health care reform to religious liberty protections. After the election of Donald Trump, perhaps they have new respect for the power of the base’s discontent. Conservatives (and social conservatives in particular) are tired of being kicked around and taken for granted by their own party. And if November 2016 showed Republicans anything, it’s that compromise on core values will cost them.

Originally published here.

---

This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.