In making their argument about the alleged budget-busting and job-killing effects of health care reform, the Republicans relied largely on data supplied to them by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The Republican study accuses the health care law of causing larger deficits and fewer jobs.
But the Republican study has been criticized, too. It relies on somewhat dated figures from early last year. It cites a report by the National Federation of Independent Business that was released 1½ years before the health care bill was completed. In addition, it assigns some fixed costs to health care reform that would have to be paid whether we had the new law or not.
Another GOP indictment is that the reform law will kill jobs. Micah Wieinberg, a health care expert at the New America Foundation, says, “The claim has no justification.”
Amitabh Chandra, a professor of public policy at Harvard, says, “The effect on employment is probably zero, or close to it.”
The Congressional Budget Office estimates the amount of work done might decline by about a half a percent. But it’s not for the reason the Republican study suggests. The decline will mostly occur because fewer people will seek jobs, not because there will be fewer jobs. For example, employees in their 70s and 80s who are still working so they can afford to pay health insurance premiums might opt to retire, like their friends. Isn’t that a good thing? That’s not “job-killing.”
Nobel economist Paul Krugman wrote of the GOP study: “Republicans seemed to have lost interest in the war on terror and have shifted focus to the war on arithmetic.”
It turns out that the biggest problem with the Republican resolution is that, were it to become law, it would in fact make matters worse. The same day the Republicans published their study, the Congressional Budget Office sent a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner reporting that the health care repeal act would actually increase the national debt.
A more detailed report was promised to follow at the end of the month. But the conclusion is devastating to the House Republican’s attempt to repeal Obamacare. The CBO wrote: “Over the 2012-2021 period, the effect of H.R. 2 on federal deficits as a result of changes in direct spending and revenues is likely to be an increase in the vicinity of $230 billion.”
According to the CBO, Obamacare will likely reduce deficits, while the Republican H.R. 2 repeal bill would increase them.
The letter to Boehner continued: “CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2 would probably continue to increase budget deficits relative to those under current law in subsequent decades.” It would get worse after 2021.
Finally, the CBO letter concluded: “Under H.R. 2, about 32 million fewer non-elderly people would have health insurance in 2019.”
Obamacare will require many adjustments. It would be foolhardy, however, to go back to a system in which 50 million Americans were without health coverage, in which we spent twice as much per capita as the Europeans and health care costs were rising at double the rate of inflation.
The Republicans shouldn’t try to repeal Obamacare until they come up with something better.
• Mickey McGuire, a retired high school social studies teacher, is among a select group of local residents with columns in the Tracy Press.
That an it was passed an signed inta law by all of of th President's Democrat party friends. So ya see, it simply has ta be good policy.
What’s that? Unconstitutional ya say? What do judges know about it anyway. They didn’t read th over 2,000 page bill just like we didn’t get ta before it was passed an sent ta Obama ta sign inta law.
Oh never mind, President Obama simply forgot that he promised we'd all get ta read all of it at least two weeks before he would sign it inta law. He meant ta do that. Just forgot is all. An who can blame him? He's got so much on his mind. Thangs like sneakin out an puffin a cigarette or worryin about who's gonna walk th First Dog BO. An really, we all know it was Bush's fault anyway so we can't blame th President fer any of this. Why that would be irrational an we all know that we are not irrational now don't we?
What do judges have ta do with th constitution an law anyway?
Accordin ta th new speaker of th house, th three branches of government are th House, Senate an th President. Nothin about th judiciary bein a part of th three branches of government.
So we don't need no judges tellin us what's unconstitutional or not, we got th other three branches of our government ta do that. Besides, we know they all feel th constitution is just an inconvenience anyway so lets just toss in inta th garbage heap.
Why it must be worthless, else why can it be ignored the President, Congress an by so many people that th President has hired an appointed ta their offices?
Can we say Home Land Security? How about T.S.A? Yes, ya did a fine job at pronouncin them thangs. Now just say Heil next time ya see th President an ya will have it down pat. But careful ya don't get caught tyin yer shoelaces, someone might get th wrong idea like another famous political figure once did.
An what’s up with th president ahyway? When he was a Senator he was against forcing citizens ta purchase health insurance. You would have thought that a law professor an Civil Rights attorney that taught at th University of Chicago Law School an a magna cum laude graduate frum Harvard Law School would have known that what he was signin inta law was unconstitutional not that th constitution matters any more.
Oh yeah, that’s right, they didn’t read it before they passed it. At least that’s what Natterin Nan was implyin with her comment, “We need to pass this bill so that we can see what’s in it.” Guess th President felt th same way.
Come ta thank of it, ain’t th House an Senate at least over half lawyers? Wonder whair they went ta school? Can we see those transcripts?
An while we touched on transcripts, has anyone seen th Presidents educational transcripts recently? Nah, never mind, it ain’t important an if we really wanna see em I am quite shore that Governor Abercrombie of Hawaii can dig em up out of th archives that apparently don’t really exist anywhere.
Ain't it odd that when ya apply fer almost any type of job yer prospective employer illegally tramples yer civil rights by askin ya ta provide yer transcripts ta prove ya actually got th education that ya claim ta have?
An if yer gettin yer drivers license, passport or takin a position that requires ya ta be a legal Citizen of th United States, they further abuse yer rights by askin ya ta produce yer birth certificate ta prove it.
Do such atrocities in our government actually exist where we can force people against thair will ta do things that we wouldn't require th President of the United States of America to do? Perhaps it has somethang ta do with th lifetime benefits Congress gets when they finish muckin up our country.
We can trust th governor of Hawaii. After all, he’s known Barry since he was at least six years old playin T-Ball in Hawaii.
Yes sir, ain’t got nothing ta worry about. Obamacare is good policy an besides, who are WE THE PEOPLE to question anything these elitists decide fer us?
Good thang Bush didn't force a mandatory ban on broccoli. I like broccoli an it would be a shame if we couldn't eat it any more.
But I gotta tell ya what I am really waitin fer, an that's a ban on flatulence. Them political folk in Africa got it nailed. Just make flatulence illegal an it will all go away. Just vanish in th wind ya might say.
Won't th world smell much better then? Nice of all these politicians to take care of us so well ain't it?
Newsflash:
A federal judge in Florida just ruled the healthcare bill "unconstitutional".
Seems that we shouldn't force all those people to purchase insurance. Remember all those people who were "uninsured"?
Apparently some of them don't want to have to pay.
Looks like the Dems imvented government SPAM? But shouldn't we be allowed to OPT out if you wanted to?
If not, might I suggest we have a do-over.
But I wonder if the Barney's and Nancy's used Teddy to get them to sell short. Maybe the elitist Dems played the American people who would have to ask the unthinkable. Repeal it and do it right.
There was a time in America when people did it right the first time. Now they pass the buck and step on a voter's back not just for their own political gain, but for the sake of the Dem's Empire.
If this program is so beneficial then why is obama giving WAIVERS to all his BIG UNION buddies and those corporations who supported his election? HMMMMM????
Let’s hope the obama administration raises above ideology. Sits down with the new congress to fashion a Health Care Law that is constitutional, neutral to all groups, meets the will of the people and is bi-partisan.
Whether you agree or disagree with the health care reform act as proposed and adopted by the previous Congress, there's no reason to allow titles such as the one assigned to this legislation onto the floors of Congress.
This is a good example of why our children don't respect their parents, people don't respect each other and sovereign nations don't respect the sovereignty of other nations. We've got to start showing some respect for each other somewhere and it starts with the simplest of things, like the title of a bill in Congress.
Let's say people in their 70s and 80s are working to make their house payments and cannot afford to stop working because they can't sell their home at such rock bottom prices in this economy.
Let me finish the sentence for you.
"Repealing Obamacare is bad policy -- for the Democrats."
It would make a show of the Democrats, who were already divided over Obamacare.
For the Republicans, it's probably not such a bad idea.
Let's have a do-over!
"Granted, deductibles, co-pays, and co-insurance, are ways of lowering premium and use, but they do not have any effect on rating factors. Premiums will not go down without lowering the risk exposure to the carrier, again, this applies to any line of insurance."
To take the risk the insurance company lose their profit, and what happens? Look at it like having a customer in the store and take things without paying. The owner will have to claim proof of loss or close up and relocate. No win situation for both parties.
Or a beautician waiting for her client, gets a no show, she loses an hour and her pay.. would she be willing to take on that client next time? This is in reference to doctors with no show patients.
Also, the obese, smokers and alcoholics are anthesiologists nightmare. Nightmare for nurses to move the heavy patients around, often resulting in injuries to nurses and therapists.
Please people, if you feel you may be overweight, you might be, just take nip it in the bud and take care of the excess weight. Better for your hips, back, knees, ankles! 40 lbs overweight is 80 lbs too much on the body. And you would have saved money in the long run. No pun intended.
Save money by saving your health.
CN
Complications develop more often for obese person and smokers after a surgery than a person who takes care of their own health.
Yes, I agree with markj.
CN
They can take place at the same time. For example, if you work with deductibles and co-pays, you can make consumers and insurance companies into allies so that they both put pressure on prices, and especially on over-use. Right now consumers have no particular incentive to not have a PET scan or MRI, or use prescription that have only marginal benefit. This change would introduce market-based incentives. The main reason we spend twice as much per capita as the Europeans is over-use - too many prostate and mastectomy operations, to name just two, two much lab work and prescriptions that can't be justified medically. I still agree with you though, about a renewed emphasis in schools and the media about better diet and exercise.
average bri Premiums are out of control because government has interfered with the free market
The government has some blame, but the biggest culprit is the free market itself. First, as Mark pointed out, the problem with all insurance is that after a premium is paid, there isn't much disincentive to over-use it unless you have substantial deductibles and co-pays. It has nothing to do with the government since the dynamic for over-spending exists with both public and private insurance unless other disincentives are adopted.
Also, a recent study of two communities in Texas (MacAllen was one of them) showed that there were twice as many prostate operations in one among a matched population than in the other. The reason? The hospital in MacAllen, Texas was owned by the doctors. Such discrepancies in usage that cannot be medically justified are found all over the country. Every hospital thinks that it needs an MRI machine or it won't be considered to be a first class institution, even though so many machines can't be justified by need. But the purchase of such machine drives usage - you have to pay it off. Our health care system is full of such distorted incentives that are drive by the profit motive and are not the government's fault. I'm not saying that it isn't fun to blame the government, just that our problems are much more complicated the deeper you look.
Many teens are dangerously obese.. they will require many hours of doctors care with all those visits combined. Their growing bones will be affected by all that weight, some will have weight induced deformed feet. Their bodies are older than their actual age.
As for Michelle, I think she would do greater service if she would discourage companies from putting in sugar, salt, preservatives, fat, etc. etc. that puts our health in jeopardy. Who needs 24 cubes of sugar in Coke?!!
Messy situation for our country to face. I worry for the elders....
Bring back healthy wholesome food. Of course, it will take time and effort to prepare them, probably even less time than waiting in the doctor's office.
CN
Premiums are out of control because government has interfered with the free market, limiting choice and competition. If you could buy insurance from a company in Texas or Florida, instead of being forced to choose only from CA plans, the cost would be much lower. But our government doesn't allow you to have that choice.
The government (liberal socialists) also want you to look at the fat guy next to you at Mickey-D's and blame him for your high premiums, but he's not what's driving the costs up.
Do you really want the government controlling where you eat or what you eat? Do you really want the government to control what the fat guy eats or where he eats?
What about some vice or luxury that you afford yourself? I'm sure there's someone who could look at you and say, "That guy's behavior is costing me money so I think the government should stop him from doing what he wants!" That's a slippery slope that I doubt you seriously have thought through.
Freedom is what makes our country special. Don't be so quick to give it away.
"private doctors charge for cancellations and get paid by private insurance companies, while doctors on government sponsored health care do not."
Thanks.
CN
Big headaches for therapists.
Many reasons Physicians and Psychologist and Therapist would not get on the plan. Too many "no shows" as long as the patients on the plan know they are not paying for the Physicians time.
Private doctors charge for cancellations.
CN
The Democrats are making part of the case for not repealing the ObamaCare unconstitutional mandate by saying if we do not enforce price controls (not to mention that price controls are what is done in a socialist state, not in a country of free men with free markets) then the deficit goes up!
Watch the youtube video for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrQYANUFVUo
and decide if we want freedom or we're through with that, and it's time for socialism and price controls