>”Current law is helping Nevadans with access to affordable guaranteed health coverage,” Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said. “The loss of these protections would leave our neighbors, co-workers and loved ones vulnerable once again.” [LVSun]
Meanwhile the Republicans continue to tilt at windmills of their own devising:
“• “Washington Knows Best” is the current phrase they’re using to push for the repeal. • Protect the doctor-patient relationship. The government is not the middle man between doctor and patient. • Cut spending and debt. Don’t pay for the program with taxes or by cutting Medicare. • “Obamacare” is destroying jobs. The uncertainty of the law is preventing hiring by small businesses. • Start over and this time avoid raising taxes and redirecting funding for other federal programs to pay for it.” [LVSun]
#1. The Affordable Care Act doesn’t presume that the federal government “knows” much of anything except that there were an unconscionable number of Americans who were unable to procure health insurance coverage for themselves and their families, and that there were some for whom the rising premiums were pricing them out of the market. The act doesn’t create a public health insurance program. It does allow for the creation of “exchanges” wherein private health care insurance corporations may offer basic plans for those who cannot get insurance individually or through an employer. This exchange program is very similar to the health insurance coverage options available to members of Congress.
#2. There is NOTHING in the bill that interferes with any individual’s relationship with a family physician. In fact, if a person is in a private or employer sponsored plan with a list of participating physicians — nothing changes. If an individual is served by Medicare and has a favorite doctor — nothing changes. Under the terms of the Affordable Care Act there is no “middleman.”
#3. Repealing the health care reform act would increase the federal deficit by $230 billion over the next 10 years, ballooning up to $1.2 billion by the end of the 2nd decade. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (which the Republicans are fond of quoting when it agrees with them) notes: “As a result of changes in direct spending and revenues, CBO expects that enacting H.R. 2 would probably increase federal budget deficits over the 2012–2019 period by a total of roughly $145 billion (on the basis of the original estimate), plus or minus the effects of technical and economic changes that CBO and JCT will include in the forthcoming estimate. Adding two more years (through 2021) brings the projected increase in deficits to something in the vicinity of $230 billion, plus or minus the effects of technical and economic changes.”
#4. The Affordable Care Act doesn’t cut Medicare. The fact is that the passage of the legislation extended the life of the Medicare Trust Funds by another 12 years. [DHHS]
#5. The Affordable Care Act has not been demonstrated to have destroyed any jobs. The argument is based on the nebulous concept of “uncertainty,” under which employers are “fearful” of changing insurance environments and therefore small businesses are “prevented” from hiring people. It takes some “leaps of faith” to accept this Republican proposition. First, we’d have to believe that uncertainty about insurance plans is what is preventing small businesses from hiring — not, for example, a lack of demand for their products, goods, or services. Secondly, we’d have to believe that small businesses make their hiring decisions based primarily on the level of benefits to be provided — they don’t, any profitable small business makes hiring decisions based on the capacity of current staffing to handle current or projected transactions with customers. In fact, the Affordable Care Act gives tax breaks to small businesses to help offset the costs to the employer for providing health care insurance coverage.
A business group representing small business owners did some polling regarding two provisions of the Affordable Care Act, the tax breaks for small businesses and the creation of insurance exchanges. The results from this survey do not support the GOP contentions.Their findings:
However, most respondents are not familiar with the exchange or the tax credits; only 31% of respondents are familiar with the exchange and 43% are familiar with the tax credits. [SBM]
Far from being “uncertain” about the tax breaks in the Affordable Care Act, the employers were more likely to maintain health care insurance coverage or to provide it with the ACA in place.
#6. Start Over? It took 50 years to get any improvements and reforms into the system, and now — as they did during the debate over the ACA — the Republicans want to scrap the reforms and start over for another 50 years? For all intents and purposes this is merely an extension of the Stall Ball strategy employed by the opponents of health care insurance reform during the last session of Congress. Enough already. The part about “taxation, spending, and redirecting funding” is nothing more than window dressing.
The Affordable Care Act created regulated insurance exchanges, like the one available for federal employees (members of Congress). Major insurance corporations don’t want to be “regulated.” They don’t want to have to pay claims for preventative health screenings, or to have to incorporate coverage for women’s health or mental health services in their basic plans.
The Insurance Corporations were abusing provisions of their policies to refuse claims based on their very own definition of what constituted a “pre-existing condition.” For example, Blue Cross/Shield of Texas told parents of a newborn infant that the child’s congenital heart defect constituted a “pre-existing condition” and refused payment for the infant’s treatment. [CBS] Under the provisions of the ACA this can’t happen. Insurance Corporations were also designing plans with “defined benefits” and “life time limits,” which increased out of pocket costs for policyholders while padding the profits of the corporations. The ACA requires that insurance coverage serve to reduce out of pocket costs.
Under the previous system the Insurance Corporations could reduce their medical losses (the amount of money collected from premiums actually spent on paying for claims for medical treatment) without limit. The ACA requires that 85% of what’s collected in premiums be spent paying policy benefit claims.
In short, repealing the Affordable Care Act only benefits one special interest group in this country: The Insurance Corporations. The vote today in the House of Representatives will show very clearly which members of Congress are supporting average Americans, and which are more concerned with the Insurance Corporations.
Desert Beacon 