The Commonwealth vs ObamaCare©: What's it mean?

As I'm sure our readers already know, a federal judge in Virginia has ruled the (Evil) Individual Mandate unconstitutional. There are a lot of legal eagles already dissecting the various legal implications, but I'd like to share some thoughts about the ruling from the perspective of risk management. Of course, these are not incompatible, so please pardon my use of some legalistic terminology in this analysis.

Let's start with this: if one presumes (as I do) that the true goal of ObamaCare© is to destroy the health insurance system that over 85% of us currently enjoy, then this ruling is a boon to those who favor it. Since the judge has ruled that the precept of "severability" does not attach, then we are left with a system that will require insurers to ignore pre-existing conditions while driving away healthy folks who would represent a "cushion" against increased claims. As insurers face more expensive and frequent claims from those who are ill, premiums will escalate even faster than they already do, driving away healthy folks who know that, if and/or when they get sick, coverage will be readily and immediately available. What possible reason would they have to remain insured?

Of course, since we already know that this is the desired outcome of those who favor ObamaCare©, it makes perfect sense: once enough people leave the system, and premiums increase beyond our wildest imagination, the government will have little choice but to step in. Whether that's through price controls or simply moving everyone to a nationalized scheme, the result will be an insurance system far different than what we have now. The problem, of course, is that "different" doesn't necessarily mean "better;" as we've seen from (for example) the MVNHS©, such a system does little beyond rationing to rein in increased health care costs, while subjecting its victims, er, insureds to lengthy waits and poorer outcomes.

Obviously, Judge Hudson's ruling is merely a stepping stone; there are still approximately 4.8 million other lawsuits currently wending their way through the judicial system. I do appreciate that at least one jurist has "seen the light" regarding the Evil Mandate, but I'm less sanguine that this represents a meaningful step forward. Still, it's preferable to a ruling approving the mandate.

Absent imposition of severability, I give it a B-.

Dodging the Mandate Bullet

As we noted earlier this year, the recent tax law essentially neutered the (evil) Mandate:

"Quite simply put, the mandate still exists. It's still in the law. What has changed is the penalty for not purchasing health insurance has been zeroed out"

Note well, however, that:

1) This applies to plan year 2019 and after; the tax/penalty/fine remains in place for 2018, and

b) It's a certainty that the tax/penalty/fine will be reinstated should the Congress change hands in November.

That being said, there is some other good news out of DC:

"The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced on Wednesday a new opportunity for those who failed to comply with the individual mandate in 2018 to avoid the corresponding tax penalty.

The new policy allows hardship exemptions to be claimed without "the documentary evidence or written explanation generally required."

That is, "because I say so" becomes a legit deferral mechanism. And since this is an implementation under the Executive branch, it seems pretty Congress-proof to moi.

Sweet.

[Hat Tip: FoIB Steve Downey]

CLASS Warfare

Well, it only took seven-plus months, but the MSM has finally caught up with us:

"[G]overnment experts repeatedly warned that a new long-term care insurance plan could go belly up, saddling taxpayers with another underfunded benefit program, according to emails disclosed by congressional investigators."

Actually, we could have saved these investigators some time (and the taxpayers some cold hard cash), if they'd only simply read this:

"[A] plan that's guaranteed issue, with (ostensibly) no waiting or elimination period and "unlimited" benefits is not exactly a candidate for "most stable rates." In fact, the only real "certainty" is that rates will increase, perhaps quickly and dramatically, as those least able to find real long term care insurance (LTCi) flock to the government plan."

But we weren't even the first to draw this (rather obvious) conclusion:

"Seems like a recipe for disaster to me," William Marton, a senior aging policy official in the administration, wrote in an October 2009 email."

The problem, as both Mr Marton and our own fine selves pointed out, is that this type of plan will attract those least able to qualify for underwritten plans. That is, only the least healthy are going to want to sign up for a plan with a five-year waiting period, coupled with rates based on guaranteed acceptance. It is a recipe for disaster, which has been long known and discussed.

And there's this: recall that one of the most contentious pieces of ObamneyCare© is the (Evil) Mandate. The ostensible justification for the Mandate is that, without it, the guaranteed issue and community rating aspects won't fly. And so it may very well be for the CLASS(less) Act: without a mandate that all eligible workers participate, the program is unsustainable.

Of course, like everything else in ObamneyCare©, we had to pass it to learn just how awful it is.

ObamneyCare©: One step forward, one step back?

A Democrat-appointed, three judge panel shot down Virginia's suit against the Evil Mandate:

"A federal appeals court on Thursday rejected Virginia's challenge to President Obama's health care law, saying in a ruling that the state doesn't have a right to bring a lawsuit."

Note that this isn't a ruling on the merits of the mandate itself, simply that Virginia lacks the "standing" to bring such a suit (although it's not clear who or what would have such standing in that case).

Meanwhile, the other legal battles continue their slog toward the SCOTUS.

And speaking of snafu's, FoIB David Hogberg (writing at IBD), has found an interesting (and potentially lethal) financing problem inside ObmamneyCare© itself:

"Because of a quirk in ObamaCare, people who buy health insurance through a federally run exchange may not be eligible for premium subsidies."

As Bob noted yesterday, pricing for these kinds of plans is heavily dependent on government largesse in the form of tax credits. As David notes, though, that subsidy is available only to folks enrolled through state-run Exchanges; those who live in states served by the Fed's version will likely be ruled ineligible.

Gee, wonder if maybe we should have read the bill before they passed it.

[Hat Tip: Michael Cannon]

UPDATE (via Gabriel Malor at Ace of Spades): Okay, now I get why the state of Virginia lacked "standing." Basically, it's because the state itself isn't subject to the mandate: its citizens are. And AG Cuccinelli didn't name any actual, you know, citizens as co-plaintiffs.

Ugh.

The Mandate Update: Evil AND a Tax

Looks like Aunt Nancy was wrong on this: we didn't need to "see the plan to know what's in it" as regards the (evil) Individual Mandate:

"In order to protect the new national health care law from legal challenges, the Obama administration has been forced to argue that the individual mandate represents a tax -- even though Obama himself argued the exact opposite while campaigning to pass the legislation."

Whoa – The Obamaman lied about ObamaCare©?!

I'm shocked, shocked I tell ya!

Well, not really, since we had already made that call early on. This is a significant development, though, because it not only puts the lie to claims that the mandate is not in fact a tax, but that it is an unprecedented one, at that.

Until now, taxes were levied on things we bought or owned, but this is a tax on merely existing. Unlike the red herring that auto insurance is mandated, being taxed because one demurred from participating means that you'll be taxed simply for being a living American. I used to joke that these folks would tax the air that we breathe if only they could; turns out, this piece of ObamaCare© does just that.

If there's a bright side, it's that as more and more "clarifications" come forth, an overwhelming majority of Americans want this train-wreck repealed. It remains to be seen, of course, whether or not that translates into action, but it's a hopeful sign that folks understand just how bad this is, and that the pro-ObamaCare© forces are being forced to defend the indefensible.

Employer Mandate Under the Radar

And under the gun.

The (Evil) Individual Mandate continues to garner the lion's share of press, but the (also Evil) Employer Mandate is beginning to get some (dis)respect:

"Whereas other suits hinged mostly on a challenge to the law's "individual mandate" ... the Liberty University case also challenged similar requirements on employers to extend coverage to workers."

Currently, employers are under no requirement (other than market forces) to offer group health insurance to employees. Under ObamneyCare©, that all changes: employers will be forced to install ever-more expensive group health plans or face a stiff penalty.

As we've long remarked, this is a no-brainer for employers: given the burdensome new minimum health insurance packages required under ObamneyCare©, any fines (aka taxes) will look like a bargain.

Remember that phrase "if you like your insurance, you can keep your insurance?"

Good times, good times.

Monday Round-Up

■ We noted last month that surprise medical bills, primarily from out-of-network providers, continue to be a plague and a menace. As a result, there's at least one legislative effort to curtail them, but will the cure be worse than the disease?

Our friends at Health Agents for America tipped us to this article that offers a clue:

"Legislation limiting a provider’s ability to negotiate prices could ultimately result in reduced access to care for consumers"

One step forward....

■ Short Term Medical plans continue to be a popular ObamaPlan alternative, offering lower premiums and greater flexibility. But so-called Blue States seem to have a problem with choice. Our friends at Inside Health Policy pointed out this handy info:

"A federal judge in DC on Tuesday (Oct. 2) scheduled a hearing for Oct. 26 on stakeholders' motion to immediately suspend the administration's short-term health plan rule."

Will be interesting to see the outcome.

■ Regular readers know about the zeroing-out of the (Evil) Mandate/Tax for the 2019 plan year (assuming there's no drastic change due to next month's mid-term's). But what most of us likely didn't know was just what burden that tax levied on those least able to afford it:

“The silver lining of the zeroing out of the individual mandate in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, though, is that a $43 billion tax -- essentially a poverty tax -- has been thrown into the dustbin of history.” https://t.co/uGiDJTIxFT

— Kris Held,MD (@kksheld) October 4, 2018

■ Finally, a bonus. Via email from the folks at All Health PR:

"Sperm Counts Drop Across U.S. - Except New York"

According to new research, the sperm counts of male residents of six major US cities went down over the past ten years, except for those in New York City.

Yeah, I don't believe that, either.

Words. Fail. Mandate. Lives.

While we've never been fans of the (Evil) Individual Mandate, we've recognized that it's limited in how draconian its enforcement is allowed to be. Worst case scenario, a big check to Uncle Sam (and even that's difficult to actually enforce).

But as terrible as the (Evil) ObamaCare Mandate is, it pales in comparison to the new iteration recently passed by the Rocket Surgeons in the District of Columbia:

"DC Passes Law Requiring People To Buy Health Insurance Or Have Their Property Seized"

So, "nice house you've got there, be a shame if something happened to it because you passed on buying health insurance."

Worse yet, it doesn't appear that there's a carve-out for Direct Primary Care or Health Care Sharing Ministries (as there is in the ACA).

Yikes, indeed.

A disturbing ObamaTax thought...

"House Republicans received a boost from Democrats on Wednesday during votes to delay ObamaCare’s individual and employer mandates ... Twenty-two Democrats joined Republicans in a vote to delay the individual mandate"

This in response to the Obamastration's unilateral suspension of the (Evil) Employer Mandate a few weeks ago. The premise seems to be "if employers are off the hook, why shouldn't individuals be off it, as well?"

Which may well be "fair," but it raises a disturbing point: having looked high and low, I can find no evidence that either side is also proposing a moratorium on the Guaranteed Issue provisions of the ObamaTax.

Now you may be wondering, why is this a big deal, Henry?

Here's why: as of January 1, insurers will no longer be able to decline coverage to unhealthy people. In fact, they must write anyone and everyone who applies, regardless of health status. But if no one is required to "buy in," it seems likely that only the least healthy among us will do so. After all, absent the (evil) individual mandate, healthy folks have no real incentive (other than personal responsibility) to sign up. But "sick" people have ample motivation, and will likely do so in droves, further driving up rates for those already insured, and presumably causing some (many? most?) to drop their increasingly unaffordable coverage.

ObamaTax supporters, of course, consider this a feature, not a bug.

Substandard?

Although the original Evil Mandate meme was predicated on the (long discredited) comparison to mandatory auto insurance, perhaps the latter may serve as a useful tool for comparison to the latest drivel from Our Betters in Government©.

The latest to weigh in on the matter is California Governor Mr Linda Ronstadt Jerry Brown:

"It’s not really a cancellation,” Brown said during the station’s Sunday Morning Q & A segment ... “these are Marylanders who are getting notices ... that you can renew your policy today and into 2014 but in 2014 you won’t be able to renew your current plan because it’s a substandard plan"

Interesting definition of "renewal" there, Guv.

But let's think about this for a minute.

What is "substandard" about existing plans? Well, most individual plans (and these are the ones being cancelled alternately-renewed right now, but don't assume that your group plan will be long immune) exclude normal childbirth, and birth control convenience items, for that matter.

Does this make them substandard, as compared with the new ObamaTax-compliant plans which mandate these coverages?

[ed: and BTW, why no prostate or testicular cancer screening bennies for us XY'ers?]

Let's take a look at a typical auto policy, shall we?

They (almost all) start with liability coverage; that is, to protect those whom you harm when you run into them in the intersection. This coverage will pay their medical bills, and fix their cars. But what about your car?

If you have a late model vehicle, odds are you have comprehensive and collision coverage to pay for those repairs. But say your ride is a dozen years old. Do you still carry comp and collision on it? Odds are, the answer's no, because it generally doesn't make financial sense. If it's worth only a few thousand dollars, and the comp/collision coverage is hundreds of dollars a year, then you're probably better off self-insuring. So you take a pass on the "extras," and cover the important, hard to self-insure portion (who has $250,000 sitting in the bank to pay off an injured stranger?).

Does this make your policy "substandard?"

I would argue "no," it makes your policy "appropriate to your needs." So why would maternity or pediatric dental, or any of the other EHB's be any different? If you're a 55 year old guy - or gal, for that matter - why would you want to pay for either of those?

Or is that too obvious?

It's Alive! (Oy)

Long time readers may recall The Great Quigley Kerfluffle of Aught Six; Bob's cogent, explicit and thorough take-down of the misuses of Section 105 plans still gets hits. Briefly (although I really suggest you check out Bob's original post on this), Section 105 plans are/were a way to run certain health insurance, and health care, dollars through a tax-advantaged vehicle.

They were touted by a certain "benefits advisor" as a way to delete group plans (and remember, this is 2006, when the ObamaTax was merely a gleam in a certain State Senator's eyes) and insure employees on individual plans. In and of itself, this is not a bad nor evil (or even fattening) idea; the problem arose when it became the de facto "flavor of the month," leaving the most ill employees and their dependents without coverage.

But that was then, and this is now, so why bring up such a painful episode from almost 7 years ago?

Let me tell you a (brief) story:

Yesterday, a former client called, telling me that she and her husband may need to purchase an individual major medical plan. Great timing! They're currently on a COBRA plan from his previous employer; his new employer, whom he joined a few months ago, promised a generous employment package, including a raise and, of course, first class health insurance. Last week, the employer announced that he was canning the group insurance, a few weeks before my erstwhile client (we'll call him Max) would have become eligible to sign up. And with what was his new employer going to replace the group plan?

You guessed it: individual, underwritten plans. The catch? Max and his wife were declined for coverage (although his co-worker, who had been treated for colon cancer just a few years ago, claims that he was accepted. Color me skeptical). Max called me for help and advice.

As I listened to his tale of woe, something struck me as "off" about the process he described. The more I heard, and the more questions I asked, the greater my discomfort grew. I finally asked him if he knew the name of the outfit his employer was using for this terrific new plan, and when I Googled its name, well, let's just say I was more grimly satisfied than surprised.

Turns out, our old "friend," about whose exploits Bob originally penned his 2006 post, is up to his old tricks. The employer is also playing with fire (he seems to have at least 50 employees, spread over several different companies in a sloppily transparent attempt to avoid the Evil Mandate), but that's his and his "advisor's" problem, not mine.

My challenge is to help Max and his family navigate [ed: Heh!] the minefield which has been set before him thanks to his new employer and his "advisor."

Oh, you may be wondering why I keep using the term "advisor." Turns out, in the years since our own encounters, the "gentleman" in question has decided to suspend his own insurance sales activities. Whether or not that was by choice remains unclear, but his official company bio simply says that he's "an advocate for the business owner [whose] main focus is on saving employer's money." A noble enough proclamation, if perhaps a bit self-serving.

And of course, it does nothing to ensure the financial health of that employer's victim employee. My client told me that his employer and the "advisor" assured him that they'd find him coverage, or at least work out some kind of reimbursement "arrangement;" as you've probably guessed, I urged him not to agree to or sign any such agreement before I've had a  chance to review it with him. I do, however, find it oddly amusing that this all took place yesterday.

ObamneyCare© Mecca

We've noted before that certain religious groups have been granted ObamaWaivers© as regards the (Evil) Individual Mandate. Exactly how that's legal has been unclear, though.

Until now:

"[ObamneyCare©] uses the Social Security language of the Internal Revenue Code to determine who is eligible for “religious conscience” objection to the insurance mandate."

That is, since Moslems consider insurance as "haraam" (forbidden), they're not going to be required to buy health insurance. Other religions, including the Amish and Christian Scientists, are also being given free passes on the Mandate.

I find this fascinating: after all, mandate is defined as "[a]n authoritative command or instruction." I googled around, and couldn't find it defined as "[a]n authoritative command or instruction. Unless it's inconvenient or offensive."

Funny, that.

The Individual Mandate is Evil [UPDATED]

The other day, I had breakfast with an old friend and mentor. In the course of discussing ObamaCare, he asked me which part I considered the most egregious. I think I surprised him when I said it wasn't coverage for abortions or illegal aliens, or even the so-called "Public Option" which most offended me.

It's the individual mandate.

Now, one might think that, because I sell insurance for a living, I'd be all for a law that required folks to buy what I sell. But I'm an American first, and I find this particular idea repugnant and, frankly, unAmerican. Here's why:

There is no precedent for requiring us to buy a product or service simply for living. There are those who argue, incorrectly, that we're required to buy automobile insurance. But they neglect to finish the sentence: "if one chooses to own and/or operate a car." Many folks go through life relying on public or alternate transportation, never having the need or requirement to buy auto insurance. But there are no choices here: simply being alive would require one to buy insurance.

Second, this is far beyond a slippery slope: if the government can require you to buy something you don't need or want, then it can require you to do anything. There simply is no limit.

Third, a friend of mine recently raised a First Amendment issue: what about those folks who, because of their religion, don't use medical services? Would Scientologists and the Amish (for example) be exempted from this requirement? If not, then they're paying for something that they cannot use due to their faith. This is a gross infringement on their 1st Amendment rights. If they are exempt, then how many folks will join (or claim to join) one of these faiths in order to avoid the mandate, and how would that square with its goals?

There is just no valid case to be made for such a law, and its adoption would be a very, very bad thing.

UPDATE: It appears that the most egregious penalties vis: the Individual Mandate have beentoned down in Dr Harry's version of ObamaCare:

‘‘(C) INDEXING OF AMOUNT.—In the case
5 of any calendar year beginning after 2017, the
6 applicable dollar amount shall be equal to $750,
7 increased by an amount equal to—
8 ‘‘(i) $750, multiplied by
9 ‘‘(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment de
10 termined under section 1(f)(3) for the cal
11 endar year, determined by substituting
12 ‘calendar year 2016’ for ‘calendar year
13 1992’ in subparagraph (B) thereof.
14 If the amount of any increase under clause (i)
15 is not a multiple of $50, such increase shall be
16 rounded to the next lowest multiple of $50."

In other words, a penalty far less than called for by Nurse Nancy's edition.

And it also appears that they've dropped the threat of jail-time:

"WAIVER OF CRIMINAL AND CIVIL PENALTIES AND INTEREST.
—In the case of any failure
12 by a taxpayer to timely pay any tax imposed by this
13 section—
14 ‘‘(A) such taxpayer shall not be subject to
15 any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect
16 to such failure,"

That subsection goes on to say that penalties will be that the gummint gets to keep any tax refunds, that kind of thing.

On the other hand, it will still be illegal to choose to be uninsured. So the principle that one will be required to buy insurance remains unchanged.

And here I thought these guys were pro-choice.

[Update Hat Tip: Ace of Spades]

(Evil) Mandate Unconstitutional?

Maybe:

"A divided U.S. appeals court in Atlanta ruled Friday that a key provision of last year's federal health-care overhaul is unconstitutional, siding with a group of 26 states that challenged the law."

We last wrote about this particular case in June.

Of course, this is but one battle....

They're baaaack: ObamaWaiver Mania

In fairness, this first item isn't so much an ObamaWaiver as a court-ordered time-out:

"A Largo high-tech engineering firm doesn't have to offer emergency contraception under its medical plan while its case challenging part of the federal health care law is pending in court"

The company's owner is a "devout Southern Baptist" whose religious beliefs [ed: remember when those were protected under the First Amendment? Good times, good times], prohibit abortifacients. Timing is everything, which seems to be working in Mr Beckwith's favor: since his "insurance plan was up for renewal this month, Beckwith could have been required to start covering the contraceptives while the case was under review. U.S. District Judge Elizabeth Kovachevich granted Beckwith a reprieve, saying the company may be due religious protections under federal law."

Whew!

There's no denying, though, that this one is a full-bore ObamaWaiver:

"The Obama administration on Wednesday broadened an exemption for American Indians from the new health care law's [Evil Mandate] ...  tribal advocates are pleased that the administration added an exemption for Native Americans who are eligible for services through an Indian health care provider."

Um, guys? Be careful what you wish for. You might just get it.

And so the first shot is fired...

One of the interesting, and frustrating, elements of ObamaCare© is its unprecedented power-grab at the expense of the individual states. It's heartening to see, however, that the 10th Amendment isn't completely dead yet, and that a dozen-and-a-half states have taken the Obamistration to court in an effort to derail (or at least defang) ObamaCare©.

Today marks the beginning of the first major round of court battles, as the "Justice" Department asks U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson to enjoin the states from even pursuing their lawsuit, countering that:

"[O]verturning the health care law would unduly expand judicial review of Congress and other government branches. More specially, the DOJ argues that Congress has the power to determine how federal money appropriated for Medicaid may be spent and can give states an option of setting up their own health exchanges or having the federal government do so."

Overstepping bounds? Hey, that's the Fed's job!

And by the way, that little "option" at the end is an interesting red herring: the unconstitutional (and evil) mandate is about individual rights, and have nothing to do with the exchanges (except tangentially).

We'll keep you posted.

Speaking of fine messes

As the ObamaTax kicks into high gear heading into its full implementation in '14, it doesn't take a Nostradamus to foretell the consequences. Indeed, some are already making themselves rudely obvious:

"The next year is one massive scramble for employers to implement the [ObamaTax] now that it’s been upheld, and not all the regulations businesses need to follow have been written."

Most of these will affect businesses with 50 or more employees (ouch!), which means a lot of small to mid-sized firms have to be thinking "why do I need this headache?"

Here in the Buckeye State, the [Evil] Mandate ObamaTax may cost north of "$940 million in 2014 and 2015 based on the 400,000 people in the state who are eligible for Medicaid but are not enrolled"

Of course, Gov Kasich could just go all Walker/Jindal here. Good times, good times.

Finally (well, for now):

"The [Deloitte Center for Health Solutions] is set to release a study that says the number of businesses offering coverage – 130 million – could be cut in half during the next decade"

Told. You. So.

[Hat Tip: FoIB Holly R]

About that *Other* Big ObamaTax case

Cato's Michael Cannon has been following the Halbig case for quite some time. Last we checked, it looked like a US District judge had shot down this case, which argues that IRS enforcement of the (Evil) Mandate was illegal in 34 of the 58 states.

Reports of the case's death, however, are greatly exaggerated. As Michael reports today:

"[A]ppellate Judge Thomas B. Griffith clarified that an Exchange established by the federal government is not “established by the State.” When the government’s lawyer argued that federally established Exchanges meet that requirement, Judge A. Raymond Randolph cut him off: “That is a leap. That is not statutory interpretation.”

Interesting development.

Your Wyden Waffles Post

Apparently, Sen Ron Wyden (D-IHOP) agrees with us that the so-called Individual Mandate is evil. Previously, of course, he was all for it; in fact, it was a centerpiece of his own "Healthy Americans Act." But that was then, and this is now:

"Last week Mr. Wyden sent a letter to Oregon health authority director Bruce Goldberg, encouraging the state to seek a waiver from certain ObamaCare rules ... One little-known provision of the bill allows states to opt out [of the mandate] ... I believe that the heart of real health reform is affordability and not mandates..."

Last year, for example, we reported that he was not only "on board" with the mandate, but that it was integral to his proposal. This despite the fact that, as we pointed out at the time (and which has since been validated):

"[I]f one is required to buy insurance, it certainly follows that the market will be forced to offer it to them. And that, of course, sets up a whole 'nother set of issues."

Hence, ObamaCare©.

Barney, Fannie, Freddie and Death Panels

In his role as Congressional "Rabbi" for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, Barney Frank has been credited/blamed for many of our current fiscal problems. His recent announcement that he wouldn't be seeking a 17th term may be surprising, but it's his take on ObamneyCare© Death Panels that really hits home:

"Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Barney Frank announced on Tuesday his support for the repeal of the Independent Payment Advisory Board [aka Death Panels] ... became the 12th Democrat, and the 212th member of the House, to co-sponsor ... Rep. Phil Roe’s bill aimed at repealing the [them]."

While much of the focus has been on the (Evil) Mandate, the IPAB/Death Panel has managed to fly somewhat under the radar. Without it, though, there are few (if any) provisions in ObamneyCare© that directly address the cost of health care, not just the availability of health insurance.

Good times, good times.