The 2010 Health Care Reform Should be Repealed

A. the CBO I do not accuse the CBO of wrongdoing. I am, however, saying that the CBO was forced to work under the assumptions that the writers of the Health Care Bill made. With these assumptions, there is a very small decrease in the deficit. However, there are certainly some things that are wrong with this analysis. First, the huge amount of revenue expected to come from tax increases on the rich will certainly not all materialize. There will be at least some behavioral response to these tax increases, resulting in less reported income. As for Medicare, I would argue that Holtz-Eakin is exactly right that "saving" $463 Billion is unrealistic. Talking about Medicare savings in a campaign is much easier than actually making cuts in practice. This is especially true in light of the fact that the party that will be in charge of these "savings" is the same party that will likely run their entire 2012 campaign in support of traditional Medicare. It would be hard for this same party to then cut $463 Billion from the program they focused an entire campaign on. Based on these realities, I would still argue that the CBO report has some significant shortcomings, and just slightly adjusting for some of these shortcomings shows Health Care Reform adding to the Deficit. On another note, I would love to debate government run Health Care with my opponent. I will now respond to the arguments that my opponent made for Health Care Reform: A. Small Business Con argues that Health Care Reform will help small business. I will respond to that argument here. In his last post, my opponent argues that the Health Care Bill will help small business by allowing them to pay less for Health Insurance. My opponent seems to ignore the vast new complex regulations created by the Health Care Bill. There will be pages of new regulations and forms, making it harder to start a new business. To make things worse, the Health Care Bill will actually INCREASE the cost for Health Care. Basic economics tells us that more regulations and complexities will increase costs. On top of this, there a number of surcharges on Insurance Companies in the Health Care Reform Bill, which will be passed on to consumers through higher prices. My opponent also mentions a tax credit that is supposed to help small businesses buy insurance. This is true, but the bill also includes large tax increases that will hit a significant number of Small Businesses. This will, overall, hurt small businesses. Finally, I stronly disagree with the idea that Health Care Reform will improve Health Outcomes. The Health Care Bill largely relies on an expansion of Medicaid to increase access. However, as the studies I mentioned in my last post showed, Medicaid Patients do not get much better access to Health Care than uninsured patients. Likewise, the bill will lead to much larger Health Care wait times and less Medical Innovation. This could actually, in the long run, lead to worse, not better, Health Outcomes. B. Lives Will be Saved I agree completely here. However, I don't see it as very humane to have 41% of people waiting 2 or more months to see a specialist (as they do in Canada). It is also not humane to have a government system that virtually puts a halt to Medical Innovation (new medicines and technologies aren't coming from Canada or Britain). Me and my opponent seem to have different views of what is humane. It seems that my opponent believes that Health Decisions are too important for individuals to make in a private market, and should therefore be made by the government. I believe the exact opposite, that Health Care Decisions are so important that only individuals and free markets are capable of bringing about the best possible outcomes. C. The Patients Bill of Rights My opponent posts the Patients Bill of Rights (I add my comment after the point): .Stop insurance companies from limiting the care you need.- My Comment: Insurance Companies may limit care, but not to the extent that governments do. I would like to see a consumer driven system where individuals were in complete control of their own Health Care. However, I do not see why Government Rationing is so preferrable to Insurance Company rationing (especially if Insurance Companies involve much less rationing). .Remove insurance company barriers between you and your doctor.- My Comment: Again, I don't want an Insurance Company between me and my Doctor, but I would prefer the Insurance Company to the Government. However, I would like to see a system that is dominated by individuals, not Insurance Companies or the Government. .Reviewing Insurers' Premium Increases.- My Comment: I'm not sure what exactly this entails. If it means price controls, then this is a major problem. Price controls restrict supply and lead to chronic shortages. There is no doubt that prices are a huge problem in our system, but price controls are not the answer. .Getting the Most from Your Premium Dollars.- My Comment: This basically means that the government is going to force Insurance companies to spend on certain things. This is a terrible idea. The government cannot dictate how Insurance Companies need to spend their money like the private market should be able to. This is a good talking point, but is a policy mess in practice. It will lead to all sorts of corruption, while failing to improve quality. .Keeping Young Adults Covered.- My Comment: Again, this means that the government forces young adults to buy Insurance. Why this is a goal is a mystery to me. If a young adult does not want Health Insurance, they should not be forced to buy it. .Providing Affordable Coverage to Americans without Insurance due to Pre-existing Conditions- My Comment: Yes, those with pre-existing conditions need to be covered. However, forcing insurance companies to cover them will raise prices for everyone. If Insurance Companies are forced to cover everyone, people will have an incentive to wait until they are very sick to buy insurance. If they are required to insure them at a low cost, as they are in the Bill, these costs will be passed on to other insurance patients. If price controls are imposed to stop these (as they may be under the bill), shortages will result. Instead of this, we should give block grant payments to every state to allow them to find their own solutions to this problem. This is not a perfect solution, but it seems like the most practical