The 2010 Health Care Reform Should be Repealed

I will provide a rebuttal to his arguments here: a. Con: "The "Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that enacting both pieces of legislation [Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, Public Law 111-148); and, following that, the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (H. R. 4872), which together make "the health care reform"] will produce a net reduction in federal deficits of $143 billion over the 2010-2019 period. " It is true that the CBO provided an estimate that showed Health Care Reform reducing the Deficit, but this estimate has come under intense scrutiny. The former Director of the CBO, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, has estimated, in an New York Times OP-ED, that Health Care Reform will increase the Deficit by $562 Billion over the next decade: "Removing the unrealistic annual Medicare savings ($463 billion) and the stolen annual revenues from Social Security and long-term care insurance ($123 billion), and adding in the annual spending that so far is not accounted for ($114 billion) quickly generates additional deficits of $562 billion in the first 10 years. And the nation would be on the hook for two more entitlement programs rapidly expanding as far as the eye can see. " Even this does not take into account everything. Government Programs are notorious for being more expensive. In 1966, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that Medicare would cost $12 Billion by 1990 (Adjusted for Inflation). In fact, it ended up costing $107 Billion in 1990, almost 9 times as expensive as projected. Another thing to add is that the Health Care Bill is funded largely by new taxes on the rich. While these taxes may raise some revenue, they will likely raise much less than expected. In response to higher tax rates, these wealthy will shelter more income, work less, and ultimately report less taxable income. How large these effects are is debatable, but there is wide agreement that they do exist. This means that the revenue projections are at least somewhat over optimistic. For these reasons, I argue there is strong reason to doubt the CBO estimate of Health Care Reform's impact on the Deficit. In fact, I suspect that Health Care Reform may even increase the Deficit by more than the $562 Billion that Holtz-Eakin estimated. b. Con: "Actually, the health care reform does not create a government run health care program such as in Canada [2]. And Massachusetts does not have government run health care either [3]. The program that has been in Massachusetts as well as the health care reform package only serve to help everyone become insured [2, 3]. Furthermore, a waiting-line crisis does not exist in Canada [4]. That is propaganda with no substantiation. Canada has a much higher patient satisfaction rate than America [5]. " I understand that the Health Care Reform Legislation does not create a Government Run Health Care Program. However, it does significantly expand the role of government in the Health Care Sector, and it does brings us closer to the system that they have in Canada. I strongly disagree with the idea that the waiting time problem in Canada is just "propaganda". I do not know exactly how a "crisis" would be defined, but there is no doubt that waiting times are a large problem in Canada. A November 2010 Commonwealth Fund Study (and I will remind my opponent that the Commonwealth Fund is no fan of American Health Care), found that 41% of Canadians waited 2 or more months to see a specialist, while only 9% of Americans had to wait that long. It also found that 31% of Canadians had to wait 4 or more hours in the ER, only 13% of Americans had to wait that long in the ER. This study also found that 33% of Canadians had to wait 6 or more days to see a nurse or doctor when they need care, only 19% of Americans had to wait that long. Finally, the study found that 25% of Canadians had to wait 4 or more months to get non-emergency surgery, only 7% of Americans had to wait that long. Whether or not this is a waiting time crisis is debatable, but there is no doubt that Canadians have to wait substantially longer than Americans for care. As for the high patient satisfaction rate in Canada, I will concede this (although I have seen polls that show the higher patient satisfaction rate in Canada is much exaggerated). This does not, however, prove Canadian Care is better. You must remember that Americans have much higher standards than Canadians. Paul Ryan, for example, would not be very satisfied with most high quality beer when he is used to $350 wine (thought I would throw a little relevant humor in). c. Con: "Incorrect. A study "by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) reveals that Medicaid recipients have far greater access to doctors, live healthier lives and enjoy more financial stability than those who must go without. " [6]. " It is likely that Medicaid Recipients get better care than the uninsured, but not by as much as one would expect. The point I was making is that Medicaid Patients have far worse access to care than privately insured patients. There was a study in the "New England Journal of Medicine" that found that 66% Children on SCHIP or Medicaid were denied an appointment when they needed care, only 11% of Children on Private Insurance had their appointments denied. This study confirms an earlier Health Tracking Survey from the Center for Studying Health System Change that found that interns were 8.5 times more likely to reject Medicaid Patients than Privately Insured Patients. More Recently, a study from the Government Accountability Office found that Doctors were far more likely to take private patients than Medicaid Patients, but also slightly more likely to take uninsured patients than they were Medicaid Patients. (I link to all of these studies at the bottom of this post) Even though it is possible that Medicaid Patients get better treatment than the uninsured, it is not convincing that the Medicaid Program is worth its high cost. Medicaid Patients have access to substantially less care than private patients and only slightly more (if any more at all) than uninsured patients. My argument is that we should not be expanding a program that already is having major problems in providing adequate care to its recipients. Given the studies I outlined earlier, it seems that Medicaid does not provide adequate care. d. Con: "The health care reform legislation has nothing to do with a Single Payer Health Care system [2]. I would have much preferred that it did, though. " I partially agree with this. After all, the Health Care Reform Bill could not, in any way, be classified as Single Payer. However, in my original argument I was referring to how I wanted this debate to be about larger Health Care policy, not just the 2010 Legislation. Apart from that, many strong supporters of Health Care Reform are advocates of Single Payer and simply saw the final result as the best they could get. Even though the bill does not bring about Single Payer, I do believe that it brings us much closer to a Single Payer System, as it does represent a major expansion of government into the Health Care Sector. SOURCES: . http://www.nytimes.com... . http://blogs.forbes.com... . http://blogs.forbes.com... . http://blogs.forbes.com... . http://www.commonwealthfund.org...