Mother Jones writer David Corn summarily dismisses the Republican effort to repeal Obamacare as “throwing one big bag to their tea party backers” in GOP Health Care Plan: More Repeal, than Replace. Like many of the Left, he sees it as political theater, without must substance.
Also from MoJo, Suzy Khimm claims to give Health Care Reform by the Numbers, pointing out the benefits of the currently enacted provisions (the rest don’t kick in until 2014) and what a great loss it would be to the nation if the law is repealed.
Of course, Khimm fails to point out the other unintended consequences that will actually cost us (personally and financially) more than the law will supposedly save. Remember all those waivers given to small businesses and unions exempting them from the regulatory burden of the law? Government by Waiver: The Breakdown of Public Administration. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI) reinforces the contradictions of this administrative debacle: Need a waiver from Obamacare? Get in line.
How about the doctors who still decry this law, have never gotten on board with its passage, and see it as the beginning of the death throes to their profession? Survey: US Doctors Fear Healthcare Reform.
A pull quote from the survey:
“Nearly two-thirds of U.S. doctors surveyed fear healthcare reform could worsen care for patients, by flooding their offices and hurting income, according to a Thomson Reuters survey released Tuesday.”
“A Physician’s Foundation survey revealed that 40 percent of doctors plan to ‘drop out of patient care in the next one to three years.’ Sixty percent said ObamaCare will ‘compel them to close or significantly restrict their practices to certain categories of patients” — typically those on Medicare or Medicaid.'”
What I like about this article is that she doesn’t just lay out theoretical calculations, but gives the real-time human impact of the policies taking effect this year, from construction being stopped on 45 physician-owned hospitals because of certain provisions in the law (gives new meaning to the term, “job-killing”), to restricting being able to obtain over-the-counter medications (like Claritan) through a Health Savings Account. I have personally benefited from an HSA plan, and used it to buy most of my OTC medicines through it; so the fact that insureds will not be allowed to save money this way seems short-sighted, if not calculated.
Then there are the now 26 states (half the country) that have filed a lawsuit against Obamacare, charging it is unconstitutional and violates people’s rights: 26 States join Obama health care lawsuit in Fla. The so-called “Individual Mandate” is really the linchpin of Obamacare. If you can’t legally enforce the purchase of your (and your neighbor’s) health insurance, then where will the funding come from?
The debate rages on, as the House voted 245 to 189 to repeal the bill. National Review Online discusses why this is not mere theater or posturing:
“Passage by the House of full repeal makes it abundantly clear that Obamacare is far from a settled matter. That’s a crucial message to send to the public, to employers, to the states, and to participants in the health sector, as they make decisions about what is likely to happen with Obamacare in coming years.”
The Wall Street Journal also chimes in, arguing that “symbolic” does not equal meaningless:
“The stunning political reality is that a new entitlement that was supposed to be a landmark of liberal governance has been repudiated by a majority of one chamber of Congress only 10 months after it passed. This sort of thing never happens.”
Expect to see more sweeping commentary about people dying because they are uninsured, and theoretical case-studies about the dire consequences of repeal, along with more light being shed on what the actual tenets of law will produce. After the shady back room deals and arm twisting that ushered in Obamacare’s passage, I look forward to the exposure.