Mr. Speaker: What Comes After No?
The Republicans have vowed to “repeal and replace” President Obama’s historic health care reform law. Now that House Republicans have muscled through a symbolic repeal bill, they will have to deliver their own alternative plan. Don’t expect much.
By: New York Times- Editorial, The Opinion Pages, January 24, 2011
There are many more slogans than details. But it is already clear that their approach would do almost nothing to control skyrocketing health care costs and would provide little help to the 50 million uninsured Americans.
When Republican leaders talk of reducing medical costs they really mean reducing insurance premiums for some people, primarily by letting the young and healthy buy insurance in states that allow the sale of skimpy policies. That won’t help older and less healthy people and would probably drive up their premiums as they flock to states whose regulations guarantee them coverage.
The Republicans have offered no coherent plan for slowing the rapid rise in medical costs that is driving up insurance premiums, Medicare and Medicaid costs, and the federal deficit. The reform law, by contrast, has multiple provisions for changing the delivery of health care in ways that should reduce costs.
As for the Republicans’ calls to reduce waste and fraud in Medicare, reform the medical malpractice system, and expand high-risk pools to cover people with pre-existing conditions, most of these ideas are already in the reform law. They could surely be strengthened if both parties worked together.
Even as it denounces reform at every turn, the Republican leadership has figured out that many Americans want the many consumer protections that come with the new law. So, once reform is repealed, the leaders are vowing to reinstate such provisions as letting young people stay on their parents’ plans until age 26, preventing insurers from canceling policies after people become sick, and barring insurers from placing caps on what they will pay.
The problem is that such requirements will drive up the cost of insurance unless they are paired with a mandate (or comparable prod) requiring that everyone buy insurance so that healthy people offset the costs of less healthy beneficiaries. Yes, that’s the same mandate the Republicans have vowed to overturn.
Many Republicans have also vowed to restore more than $130 billion worth of unjustified subsidies to private Medicare Advantage plans that is needed to help pay for the expansion of coverage under health care reform.
In coming weeks, expect to see a lot more posturing on issues that might energize the party’s conservative base or poll well with people made skittish by months of Republican exaggerations about the new reform law. They have already introduced bills making it even harder for insurance policies in new insurance exchanges to cover abortions, never mind that the law already has incredibly strict provisions.
The Party of No will also try to use its new control of the House to block implementation of reform by withholding money needed to hire people to write necessary regulations. The House Republican Study Committee has proposed legislation that would prohibit using money in the annual budget to carry out any provision of the law or to defend it in court.
The Republicans need to explain how they plan to address the problems of covering the uninsured, wrestling down medical costs and controlling the deficit. Just saying no isn’t enough.
Size Matters: The GOP & Health Care
During the health care debate in 2009 and 2010, a serious issue emerged — the number of pages in congressional bills. I’m not kidding. The Republicans wanted short bills, and the health care reform bill was way, way too long (proving that it did too much and would end civilization as we know it). There was outrage across the country. Angry opponents of reform went to congressional town hall meetings brandishing huge stacks of paper. Then Minority Leader Boehner, foreshadowing his leadership priorities today, used a nationally televised address to condemn the length of the health care bill three times in as many minutes.
The extremists went wild. Rumors swept across the land. Some Tea Party types claimed the bill was 10,000 pages. Slate called the explosive stack-of-paper obsession “peculiar.” Ultimately, the New York Times set the record straight: “In the original version,” the Times said, “H.R. 3590 as passed by the Senate on Dec. 24, 2009, ran to some 2,400 pages, although with a very large font, triple spacing and huge left and right margins.” The newspaper went on to explain that, “With normal margins the document probably would shrink to about 500 pages or so.” Which meant the bill was not really that long when compared to other major bills, such as the financial reform law and past budget deals.
In the November mid-term elections, the Republicans ran on a platform of change, and change is what we got. Not only will the House Republicans vote to repeal the new health care law this week, they’re going to do so with a bill that’s only two pages long.
This is a triumph of conciseness, a 247-word beacon of brevity. The low word-count works especially well for the GOP, given the party’s unfinished “repeal and replace” campaign pledge. The Republicans addressed repeal, but they haven’t quite gotten to the “replace” part. That, we’re told, is a work in progress, and the question is being referred to various House committees to kick around for months.
In Sunday’s Washington Post, reporter Amy Goldstein noted that the Republican repeal vote is “the prelude to a two-pronged strategy that is likely to last throughout the year, or longer.” Great. Just what we need — another interminable debate on health care when the Republicans ought to be focusing on bipartisan solutions to create jobs. Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), the new House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, said it “may take time” for the GOP to develop a health care plan. Upton, who has been in Congress since 1987, has had only 24 years to come up with some health care ideas of his own. Instead, he hired Julie Goon, the former top lobbyist for the health insurance industry’s biggest trade group, as his special adviser.
I’m not sure what the Republican “replace” plan is (or how many pages it will be), but I know their two-page repeal bill is a bad deal for America’s families, seniors and small businesses.
The Republican repeal bill will take away dozens of benefits and important consumer protections that are making a real difference in peoples’ lives right now. When the Republicans vote for repeal, they’ll be taking away people’s newly won freedom from fear of insurers denying their care, dropping them when their sick and imposing double-digit premium hikes with impunity. They’ll be booting young adults off their parents’ health plans. They’ll be telling seniors they have to pay back the $250 donut hole checks they received to help buy prescription medications and give up their new 50% discount on brand-name drugs. The Republican repeal plan will force nearly 900,000 American families a year into bankruptcy because of huge medical bills. And it will take job-creating tax credits away from small businesses.
Speaker John Boehner and the Republicans don’t want the public to know the truth about the Affordable Care Act and what their repeal plan will take away from America’s consumers. And you can bet the debate about repeal will be filled with misleading information from Boehner and the new Republican majority. To help folks see beyond the rhetoric, Health Care for America Now made a chart that tells the truth. You can read and download a printable, high-resolution version with citations here and below.
The Republican Repeal Bill puts insurance companies back in charge of your health care.
The Republican Repeal Bill
Clearly Constitutional: A Primer on the Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act
Nearly three dozen judges have now considered challenges to the landmark Affordable Care Act and the overwhelming majority of these cases have been dismissed. Nevertheless, a single outlier judge in Virginia has embraced the meritless arguments against the new health care law and another judge in Florida also appears poised to break with the overwhelming consensus of his colleagues.
With only a few exceptions, these lawsuits principally challenge the Affordable Care Act’s minimum coverage provision—the provision requiring most Americans to either carry health insurance or pay slightly more income taxes—falsely arguing that Congress lacks the constitutional authority to enact such a provision. It is true that Congress’s authority is limited to an itemized list of powers contained in the text of the Constitution itself, but while Congress’s powers are not unlimited, they are still quite sweeping. There is no doubt that the Affordable Care Act fits within these enumerated powers in three ways, as this issue brief will demonstrate.
Congress has broad power to regulate the national economy
A provision of the Constitution known as the “commerce clause” gives Congress power to “regulate commerce … among the several states.” And there is a long line of Supreme Court decisions holding that Congress has broad power to enact laws that substantially affect prices, marketplaces, or other economic transactions. Because health care comprises approximately 17 percent of the national economy, it is impossible to argue that a bill regulating the national health care market does not fit within Congress’s power to regulate commerce.
Nevertheless, opponents of the Affordable Care Act claim that a person who does not buy health insurance is not engaged in any economic “activity” and therefore cannot be compelled to perform an undesired act. Even if these opponents were correct that the uninsured are not active participants in the health care market— and they are active, of course, every time they become ill and seek medical care—nothing in the Constitution supports this novel theory. Indeed, this theory appears to have been invented solely for the purpose of this litigation. Congress has enacted countless laws which would be forbidden under this extra-constitutional theory:
- Guns: President George Washington signed a law that required much of the country to purchase a firearm, ammunition, and other equipment in case they needed to be called up for militia service. Many of the members of Congress who voted for this mandate were members of the Philadelphia Convention that wrote the Constitution.
- Civil rights: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 compelled business owners to engage in transactions they considered undesirable—hiring and otherwise doing business with African Americans.
- Insurance mandates: The Affordable Care Act is not even the only federal law requiring someone to carry insurance. The Price-Anderson Act of 1957 requires nuclear power plants to purchase liability insurance and the Flood Disaster Protection Act requires many homeowners to carry flood insurance.
- Other mandates: Other laws require individuals to perform jury service, file tax returns, and register for selective service.
The minimum coverage provision is the keystone that holds the Affordable Care Act together
The Constitution also gives Congress the power “[t]o make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution” its power to regulate interstate commerce. As Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia explains, this means that “where Congress has the authority to enact a regulation of interstate commerce, it possesses every power needed to make that regulation effective.”
The act eliminates one of the insurance industry’s most abusive practices—denying coverage to patients with pre-existing conditions. This ban cannot function if patients are free to enter and exit the insurance market at will. If patients can wait until they get sick to buy insurance, they will drain all the money out of an insurance plan that they have not previously paid into, leaving nothing left for the rest of the plan’s consumers.
Seven states enacted a pre-existing conditions law without also passing an insurance coverage requirement, and all seven states saw health insurance premiums spiral out of control. In some of these states, the individual insurance market collapsed.There is a way out of this trap, however. Massachusetts enacted a minimum coverage provision in 2006 to go along with its pre-existing conditions provision and the results were both striking and immediate. Massachusetts’ premiums rapidly dropped by 40 percent.
In other words, because the only way to make the pre-existing conditions law effective is to also require individuals to carry insurance, that requirement easily passes Scalia’s test.
The link between the minimum coverage provision and the Affordable Care Act’s insurance regulations also sets this law aside from other hypothetical laws requiring individuals to purchase other goods or services. The national market for vegetables will not collapse if Congress does not require people to purchase broccoli, nor will Americans cease to be able to obtain automobiles absent a law requiring the purchase of cars from General Motors. Accordingly, a court decision upholding the Affordable Care Act would not provide a precedent enabling Congress to compel all Americans to purchase broccoli or cars, despite the law’s opponents’ claims to the contrary.
Congress has broad leeway in how it raises money
Congress also has the authority to “lay and collect taxes” under the Constitution. This power to tax also supports the minimum coverage provision, which works by requiring individuals who do not carry health insurance to pay slightly more income taxes. Taxpayers who refuse insurance must pay more in taxes while those who do carry insurance are exempt from this new tax. For this reason, the law is no different than dozens of longstanding tax exemptions, including the mortgage interest tax deduction, which allows people who take out home mortgages to pay lower taxes than people who do not.
Opponents of the Affordable Care Act respond that the minimum coverage provision somehow ceases to be a tax because the new law does not use the word “tax” to describe it, but this distinction is utterly meaningless. Nothing in the Constitution requires Congress to use certain magic words to invoke its enumerated powers. And no precedent exists suggesting that a fully valid law somehow ceases to be constitutional because Congress gave it the wrong name.
By Ian Millhiser, Policy Analyst and Blogger for the Center for American Progress where his work focuses on the Constitution and the Judiciary-January 18, 2011
The Importance of the Individual Mandate — Evidence from Massachusetts
The most contentious aspect of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) is the individual mandate requiring that most documented U.S. residents obtain health insurance or pay a tax penalty. Many experts have long advocated a mandate as a central pillar of private-sector–based health care reform. Others, however, have argued that a mandate is not necessary for successful reform.
Proponents of the mandate argue that it is necessary to reduce adverse selection in a reformed nongroup insurance market. Adverse selection occurs when a larger fraction of relatively unhealthy people than healthy people purchase health insurance. It is analogous to the purchase of car insurance only by high-risk drivers (or worse, only by drivers who have just had an accident). However, one of the most popular aspects of the ACA may encourage such adverse selection, since the law prohibits health insurers from discriminating against applicants on the basis of health, either by charging higher premiums for sick people or by excluding preexisting conditions from coverage. Absent other reforms, such regulations would theoretically increase premiums for healthy people and lead them to exit the nongroup insurance market, which would cause premiums to rise even more. Informal support for this hypothesis comes from the fact that the five U.S. states with such regulations (known as “community rating”) are among the states with the highest nongroup insurance premiums.1
Opponents of the mandate counter that community rating may work as long as there are large subsidies that attract healthier enrollees to the insurance pool. Such subsidies include the tax credits that the ACA authorizes for people with incomes between 133 and 400% of the federal poverty level. (The federal poverty level for a family of four is about $22,000 per year.) States with community rating do not generally offer such large subsidies, so we can’t use their experience to predict the effects of national reform minus the mandate. But understanding whether the mandate matters, even with large subsidies in place, is critical for assessing its role in reform.
The early experience with health care reform efforts in Massachusetts may offer some lessons. Massachusetts made heavily subsidized insurance available to residents with incomes below 300% of the federal poverty level for nearly a year before mandating insurance coverage. By examining the characteristics of the subsidized insurance pool before and after the mandate went into effect, we assessed how much of an additive effect the mandate had over that of simply offering subsidized, community-rated insurance.
As part of the Massachusetts reform, the Commonwealth Care program provided free insurance to people with incomes below the federal poverty level from October 2006 onward and for those with incomes below 150% of the federal poverty level from July 2007 onward. In both cases, the state automatically enrolled people who were eligible for free coverage; people in higher income groups could enroll but had to pay premiums. We therefore examined the behavior of Massachusetts residents with incomes between 150 and 300% of the poverty level, who were eligible for subsidies and had to pay insurance premiums that were meaningful but much smaller than those mandated by the ACA.
Using claims data from the Massachusetts Commonwealth Connector, we measured the health mix of the population enrolling in Commonwealth Care according to average age, average monthly health care expenditures, and the proportion of enrollees with a chronic illness. We identified enrollees as having a chronic illness if within the first 12 months after enrollment they had an office visit at which a diagnosis of hypertension, high cholesterol level, diabetes, asthma, arthritis, an affective disorder, or gastritis was recorded.2 Relying on only the first 12 months of claims ensured that our estimates of rates of chronic illness for earlier enrollees, whose claims data covered a longer period, were similar to estimates for later enrollees.
We examined these data for the period from March 2007 (the date of the first available reliable information on people with incomes in the relevant range) through June 2008 (the last month for which we could calculate our 12-month measure of chronic illness). In each month, we measured the health of the enrollees who joined the program.
We assessed the characteristics of these enrollees before, during, and after the phasing in of the mandate. Technically, the mandate went into effect on July 1, 2007. The Connector began a massive public outreach campaign in May 2007, and the number of hits on its Web site peaked around July 1. The penalty, however, was assessed on the basis of insurance coverage as of December 31, 2007. That is, people who purchased insurance in November that began in December did not have to pay the penalty, even if they had been uninsured beyond July 1. The penalty for 2007 was the loss of the individual state income tax exemption, a relatively modest $219. It increased to about $900 in 2008 and was prorated on the basis of the number of months of coverage during the year.
Characteristics of New Enrollees in Commonwealth Care, According to Enrollment Period
Number of Enrollees in Commonwealth Care, According to Chronic-Illness Status
It seems possible that even without the mandate, people with the highest health care costs would enroll first and healthier people would enroll over time. But data on the health status of new enrollees suggest that that was not the case (see graph). At the beginning of the mandate’s phase-in in mid-2007, there was a greater increase in the number of healthy enrollees than in the number of enrollees with chronic illness. When the mandate became fully effective at the end of 2007, there was an enormous increase in the number of healthy enrollees and a far smaller bump in the enrollment of people with chronic illness. The gap then shrank to premandate levels as the remaining uninsured residents complied with the mandate, but clearly the mandate brought many more healthy people than nonhealthy ones into the risk pool. The large jump in healthy enrollees that occurred when the program became fully effective suggests that enrollment by the healthy was not simply slower than enrollment by the unhealthy, but rather that the mandate had a causal role in improving risk selection.
Whether the Massachusetts experience can be generalized to the rest of the country depends in part on the relative sizes of the subsidies provided: the higher the subsidies, the smaller the role for an individual mandate. Under Commonwealth Care, adults with incomes between 150 and 200% of the poverty level were asked to contribute $35 per month. Under the ACA, their monthly contribution would be $51 to $107. At 200 to 250% of the poverty level, the monthly contributions are $70 in Massachusetts and $107 to $171 under the ACA; at 250 to 300% of the poverty level, the contributions are $105 in Massachusetts and $171 to $242 under the ACA. The larger subsidies in Massachusetts would be expected to have a greater effect in inducing healthy people to obtain insurance than the ACA’s smaller subsidies — which suggests that mandating coverage might well play an even larger role in encouraging the healthy to participate in health insurance markets nationally than it has in Massachusetts.
By: Amitabh Chandra, Ph.D., Jonathan Gruber, Ph.D., and Robin McKnight, Ph.D.-New England Journal of Medicine | This article (10.1056/NEJMp1013067) was published on January 12, 2011, at NEJM.org.
Source Information
From the John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University (A.C.), and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (J.G.) — both in Cambridge, MA; and Wellesley College, Wellesley, MA (R.M.).
References
- Rosenbaum S, Gruber J. Buying health care, the individual mandate, and the Constitution. N Engl J Med 2010;363:401-403Full Text | Web of Science | Medline
- Goldman DP, Joyce GF, Escarce JJ, et al. Pharmacy benefits and the use of drugs by the chronically ill. JAMA 2004;291:2344-2350CrossRef | Web of Science | Medline
Be Careful What You Wish For: Repeal of the Affordable Care Act Would Be Harmful to Society and Costly for Our Country
The new Republican leadership of the House of Representatives says repeal of the recently enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is their top priority. The Republicans pushing for repeal, however, conveniently ignore the enormous step backward that repeal would represent for health care in our country, for the income security of our citizens, and for the fiscal health of our government.
The Affordable Care Act is not just a law designed to cover the majority of our nation’s uninsured, moving us into the league of industrialized nations which guarantee universal health coverage for its citizens. The law also takes the crucial first steps toward reining in our runaway health care costs. It ends discriminatory insurance practices that leave many of our citizens one bad gene, or badly timed accident, away from personal bankruptcy. It does so while introducing insurance market competition that will lead to lower health insurance premiums for some, and better coverage for others, in the so-called nongroup insurance market where workers without employer-provided health insurance turn for coverage. The Affordable Care Act does all this while significantly reducing our enormous federal budget deficit over the next 10 years.
Opponents of the new health reform law claim we can have many of the beneficial features documented above while repealing the parts they don’t like. This is a misleading and dangerous assertion. In fact, virtually none of the accomplishments of the new law are possible without the entire law’s infrastructure coming into place. That’s why all of the harms of repeal documented in this issue brief below will take place if the new law were to be scuttled.
To understand the consequences of repealing the Affordable Care Act, we can turn to two sources of objective information. The first is the careful and comprehensive effort put in by the Congressional Budget Office to evaluate the law’s impacts, including their recent report summarizing the effects of repealing the new law. The second is the closest case study we have where major elements of the new federal law are already in place—the state of Massachusetts, which passed a similar reform in early 2006. So let’s now turn to the different harms repeal of the health reform would deliver up to the American people.
Repeal means more uninsured, and worse public health
The first noticeable feature of a world without the new health reform law would be the much higher share of Americans without health insurance coverage. Absent the Affordable Care Act, CBO projects that 54 million people in our country, or almost 20 percent of our nonelderly population, will be uninsured by 2019. The new law will cover 32 million of those uninsured, according to CBO, or about 60 percent, with much of the remainder undocumented immigrants who are ineligible for coverage. This is more than a projection: It is also the same percentage share of the uninsured in Massachusetts who have been covered by that state’s health reform effort.
Clearly, repeal of the new law would have enormous negative consequences for our nation’s public health. Numerous studies document the dire health implications of uninsurance. An earlier study by the Institute of Medicine estimated that, in the year 2000 (when 38 million persons were uninsured), there were 18,000 deaths per year due to uninsurance. This suggests that repealing the Affordable Care Act could lead to 15,000 more deaths per year due to higher lack of insurance.
Repeal means increased financial risk for U.S. households alongside distorted labor markets
The impact of repeal extends well beyond those households who are uninsured. Indeed, repealing the new law would reach any household who faces the risk of losing their employer-sponsored health insurance. This is because the Affordable Care Act will fix the fundamental broken system of nongroup insurance in the United States.
Currently, individuals who do not have access to employer-provided group insurance coverage face a nongroup insurance market that is discriminatory and expensive. In most states individuals can be denied insurance coverage because they are ill or have their pre-existing illnesses excluded from coverage. Individuals who become ill can face personal bankruptcy as a result. Even when nongroup insurance is available, in most states insurance is priced according to individual health, with the oldest and sickest enrollees paying many multiples of younger and healthier enrollees.
There is a fundamental unfairness to a system under which individuals can face financial ruin because they have the wrong genes, or cross the street at the wrong time, but don’t happen to have access to insurance through their employer. Moreover, such a system significantly distorts our labor markets by forcing individuals to stay in jobs that offer health insurance rather than to move to newer and more productive positions where coverage is not available. Millions of U.S. workers are not moving to better jobs for them or starting new businesses because there is nowhere to turn for insurance coverage should they leave their jobs.
The Affordable Care Act would fix this flaw in our system. Insurance companies would no longer be allowed to price discriminate or deny coverage based on health or pre-existing conditions, and price differentials by age would be lowered. Individuals would be free to move to the job of their choice or to become entrepreneurs without fear of facing uninsurance.
Repealing the new health reform law would leave us in a world of broken nongroup insurance markets, with the attendant financial risk for individuals and the continued distortion to our labor markets. Why? Because without the comprehensive framework of the new law, it is incredibly costly to make insurance fairer in nongroup markets.
If insurance companies must charge the same price to people whether they’re sick or healthy, for example, then many healthy people will view this as a “bad deal” and not buy insurance. This results in higher prices because only the sick would buy insurance, chasing even more people out of the market. The result is a “death spiral” that leads only the sick to purchase insurance at very high prices. Several states tried such community rating reforms in their non-group markets over the past two decades, and the results were sharp rises in insurance prices and rapidly shrinking market size. The only way to make insurance market reform feasible is to pair it with large subsidies to purchase insurance and an individual requirement for coverage, as is the case with the Affordable Care Act.
Direct evidence for this point comes from Massachusetts. In the late 1990s the state moved to a nondiscriminatory nongroup market, but without the subsidies and the individual requirement that are central to the Affordable Care Act. The result was a collapse of the state’s nongroup market, so that by 2006 the state had by far the highest nongroup premiums in the nation. In 2006, the state implemented their comprehensive reform, which added to the insurance market reforms extensive low-income subsidies to purchase insurance and an individual requirement for coverage. This resulted in a 40 percent reduction in nongroup premiums in Massachusetts over a period where such premiums were rising by 14 percent nationally. That’s just one reason why the new law is called the Affordable Care Act.
Repeal means a noncompetitive and expensive nongroup insurance market
Another reason the Affordable Care Act works to bring down costs is because without it, a typical health insurance policy is much more expensive in the nongroup market than in the group market, partly because nongroup insurance markets are less competitive than group insurance markets in many states. There is no common marketplace where individuals can compare the prices of all the options that are available to them in the nongroup market. As a result, existing market participants keep prices high and new firms are unable to promote lower costs as a tool of market entry.
The Affordable Care Act addresses this problem in two important ways. The first is by introducing competitive insurance exchanges in every state. Individuals would be able to shop more effectively, comparing their nongroup options in a competitive and transparent environment. This approach has already had a notable success in Massachusetts, where the introduction of the state’s Connector health insurance exchange expanded the use of nongroup insurance and promoted the entry of a major new low-cost insurer into the state’s nongroup insurance market.
Without the Affordable Care Act states are unlikely to be able to establish transformative and competitive exchanges for the purchase of nongroup insurance. Many states have tried over the past 20 years to establish insurance exchanges and they have virtually all either failed or had little impact. This is typically because insurers were afraid that individuals would choose to buy from the exchanges only if they were sick, which meant prices in the exchange were high and demand for exchange products was low. With low demand, exchanges could not establish the economies of scale necessary for success.
The success of exchanges under the new health reform law will be due to the fact that individuals will be both required to purchase insurance and that insurance purchase will be subsidized only through the exchange. This will promote exchanges on a scale necessary to succeed in promoting competition in state insurance markets.
The second way that the Affordable Care Act addresses the high costs of nongroup insurance is through the introduction of new tax credits to make health insurance affordable through the exchange. The typical middle-class family in the United States would now be provided financial support to ensure that they would not have to spend an unfair amount for the insurance they need to protect their family.
The upshot: Repealing the new law would mean returning to an era where individuals can’t effectively compare their insurance options, guaranteeing continued noncompetitive and expensive insurance in this market. And it would mean that individuals would face the full prices in these noncompetitive markets without the necessary tax credits to make insurance affordable. Repeal, in short, would be unfair, ineffective, inefficient, and costly.
Repeal means free riders would continue to exploit the health care system
Another fundamental flaw in our current health care system before passage of the Affordable Care Act was that individuals could “free ride,” remaining uninsured until they need care and then turning to emergency rooms. Emergency rooms are required by law to provide care to all regardless of insurance coverage. The associated uncompensated care costs of treating these individuals amount to a more than $40 billion a year tax on the insured in the United States
The Affordable Care Act ends this free riding by requiring that individuals purchase insurance if it is affordable for them (which it will be for most due to the subsidies described earlier). This personal responsibility requirement, originally the brainchild of Republican experts, would end the unfairness of a system where emergency room health care providers are required to treat everyone but individuals are not in turn required to pay their fair share of the costs of treatment. Repealing the new law would mean returning to a world where individuals can simply wait until they are sick to get treated, passing the costs on to the rest of society that is paying their share.
Repeal means the continued decline of private insurance
There was an enormous erosion of private insurance coverage in the United States over the past decade. Employer-sponsored insurance fell by 15 percent and nongroup insurance has not grown to keep pace. The result today is an increase in both the ranks of the uninsured and the publicly insured.
The Affordable Care Act arrests this decline and promotes private insurance coverage. According to the CBO, the new law will lead to a small erosion in employersponsored insurance coverage, offset by a rise in nongroup insurance coverage that is almost five times as large. Overall, private insurance coverage in the United States will rise by 15 million people due to the Affordable Care Act.
Repeal would provide no cushion for our citizens to offset this rapid decline in employer-sponsored insurance coverage. Fifteen million fewer U.S. residents would have private insurance than without the law. The Affordable Care Act is not a government takeover of the U.S. health system; it is a means of using reformed private nongroup insurance markets to more effectively fight the steady decline in employer-provided group insurance. Repeal means a fundamental retreat from the promise of private health insurance coverage for our citizens.
Repeal means higher and more rapidly growing budget deficits
The Affordable Care Act delivers a unique dose of fiscal responsibility in an era of rapidly growing federal budget deficits. The new law offsets its new spending with even larger reductions in other spending and revenue increases. As a result, CBO estimates that the legislation will reduce the deficit by more than $100 billion by 2019, and by more than $1 trillion in the decade after that.
What is not widely appreciated is that deficit reduction due to the new health law will rise over time. The cuts in excessive spending and increases in revenues are back-loaded, not front-loaded as with so many other recent pieces of legislation. This is illustrated by the fact that the most recent CBO estimate shows that repeal would raise the deficit by $230 billion over the next decade. And, because the net budget savings from the new health law will grow over time, repeal would raise the deficit by much larger and ever growing amounts into the future.
Repeal would therefore mean undoing the enormous fiscal benefits of this legislation. Offsetting a more than $100 billion hole in the budget deficit by 2019 would require significant cuts elsewhere in the budget or other increases in revenues. And it seems highly unlikely that Congress would enact spending or revenue changes that would increase so rapidly over time. That means even fixes that offset the short-term costs of repealing the new law would not address the enormous long-term hole it would leave in our budget.
Repeal means a critical step backward on cost control
Reforming insurance markets and covering the uninsured are actually the relatively easy lifts for the new health reform law when compared to the more daunting and fundamental challenge—reducing the rate of growth in health care costs, which threatens to bankrupt our government and our nation. U.S. spending on health care is very high and a source of great concern but it is the growth rate of medical spending, not its level, that ultimately determines our country’s financial well-being. Absent the Affordable Care Act, if current trends persist we will be spending an unsustainable 38 percent of our GDP on health care by 2075 because the growth of health care costs would continue to outstrip the growth rate of the overall economy.
Addressing the rapidly rising costs of medical care, however, faces two daunting barriers. The first is scientific: There is tremendous uncertainty about how to lower health care costs without sacrificing health care quality. There is a broad consensus that there is significant waste in our health care system. But there is little consensus about the best way to address that waste without risking the enormous gains in population health due to health care improvements in recent decades. The second barrier is political: There are major entrenched interests that are threatened by fundamental health care reform and who will strongly oppose any such efforts.
In the face of these barriers, our political process has found it difficult to make progress on significant cost-control efforts over the past several decades. The Affordable Care Act represents the most important step forward in cost control in at least 30 years. The new law pursues many different approaches toward cost control, studying them to see which ones work best. This is through provisions that:
- Reduce consumer demand for excessive medical care through the “Cadillac tax” on high-cost insurance plans.
- Reduce health care provider payments by appointing a depoliticized board to make up-or-down recommendations to Congress on changes to Medicare’s provider payments.
- Set up dozens of health care pilot programs to test various approaches to revamping provider-payment incentives and organizational structure.
- Invest hundreds of millions of dollars in new comparative-effectiveness research.
- Launch pilot programs to assess the impact of various reorganizations of the medical malpractice process.
None of these approaches is guaranteed to work but together they represent a significant step toward fundamental cost control.
Importantly, they represent steps that are unlikely to happen if the Affordable Care Act is repealed. None of these ideas are new; most have been around for decades. But it was through the overall push for health reform that Congress was able to finally put them in place. Absent such a unifying framework, the barriers which have blocked cost-control efforts in the past will continue to stand in the way of moving forward on cost-control efforts.
Bottom line: Repeal is a dramatic step backward
The debate over repeal of the Affordable Care Act is characterized by enormous misinformation and confusion. Opponents of the legislation exploit this for political gains. A legitimate debate over the Affordable Care Act and the future of health care in America must recognize the fundamental improvements to our health care system put in place by this new law. Repealing would lead to:
- A society with poorer health and ultimately more deaths from lack of medical care
- A continued unfair and expensive nongroup insurance market that leads to economic instability, medical bankruptcy, and a less efficient job market where individuals are afraid to move to more productive job opportunities
- Continued free riding by those who pass billions of dollars in care costs onto the insured
- A massive decline in private insurance coverage
- Huge and unsustainable increases in budget deficits reaching trillions of dollars over coming decades
- A fundamental step backward in our efforts to control the health care costs which threaten to bankrupt our society
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is aptly named. Repeal would mean less health care protection for more and more Americans at higher and higher costs to themselves, their families, and our nation. We simply cannot afford to repeal the new law.
By: Jonathan Gruber, Professor of Health Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the Massachusetts Health Connector Authority: January 19, 2011
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 
You must be logged in to post a comment.