The Affordable Care Act is Effective Legislation

Opening Remarks Thanks to Con for posting so quickly, although I am a little disappointed that the whole argument came form that one source. Below, quotations from Con are coloured red(or should be if this reformats properly). ‘Employer mandate. Most companies will have to provide and pay for expensive government-determined health insurance for their employees or face federal fines.’ In my arguments above I detailed the employer mandate. Employers should have some responsibility for the welfare of their employees in the place of the government. Packages are cheaper when bought through employer schemes and often are more comprehensive. Your source’ stipulation that this new coverage will be ‘expensive’ is entirely wrong. The new mandate will be accompanied by both a carrot and stick: the carrot in the form that if the employers follow the new guideline they will be rewarded with tax breaks and other incentives[i]. For many companies, employer coverage will become cheaper because of the new incentives. The provision limits this new expansion to companies with 50+ employees, and companies will have time to prepare for the new rules. Rather than ‘government determined’, new coverage will be bought in the same way but will be easier to buy because of the new insurance exchanges being created. The main opposition to this rule has not been from the American people but rather from big business that employ many very cheaply such as mass food chains and factories. What hurts about making these companies a little more responsible for those that they employ? Will this not usher in a new era of ethical practice with companies in relation to their employees. ‘ Anti-conscience mandate. Religious organizations will be required to provide free sterilization, contraceptives, and abortion-inducing drugs to their employees, even if it violates their religious beliefs.’ I found it quite difficult to find reliable information on this, much of the writings on the web were from the tea-partiest Heritage Foundation, a darling of Koch industries and a host of other interested parties. I eventually found a source detailing exactly what this claim means[ii]. ‘…the Health and Human Services (HHS) Mandate which requires nonexempt employers/insurers to provide eligible women with coverage for contraceptives, sterilizations, and related patient education and counseling.’ It seems like the provision is closely related to the Employer Mandate, making clear that coverage for women on employer programs must include contraceptives. First of all notice that the provision covers ‘non-exempt’ employers- not churches, community groups or faith groups. It covers for-profit companies, of which very few are explicitly religious. So baring in mind these companies are a tiny minority, is it right that they should limit who they employ on religious grounds or limit their coverage because of religious objections? It sounds very much like discrimination, and these companies should have to pay for contraceptives to women who want them. This source excellently stipulates a modern day Jefferson view on the provision: ‘The First Amendment was meant to create a wall of separation between Church and state.[1] However, this does not prevent civil government from regulating economic activity.[2] It seems to me that requiring health insurance providers to cover certain medical benefits has nothing to do with man’s natural rights to hold religious beliefs free from government interference. This is not about religious opinion. This is about providing health care to women.[iii]’ Therefore bearing in mind that the provision is constitutional, to please concerned groups the federal government made a compromise that looks goes like this… ‘Under this [compromise], a nonprofit religious employer must notify its insurer that it objects to contraceptive coverage. The insurer must then notify people in the health plan that it will arrange or pay for contraceptive services as long as they remain in the health plan.[iv]’ Using these sources, I find it difficult to find what the argument from Con intends to make. Not only is the provision small, fair and constitutional, but also the provision has been altered to provide a compromise to worried religious non-exempts. I ask Con to concede this point to me. ‘New and higher taxes the law contains at least 20 new taxes totaling $500 billion that will hit medical innovators, health insurance, and even the sale of your home.’ The area of these new taxes is highly complex and unsuitable to be put into the debate in its entirety. Despite this I will make an effort to outline what some of the main taxes are, why they are being introduced, and why they are necessary. For the majority of the 85% of Americans with health insurance the percentage of income paid in taxes won't change much, if at all. However, some of the changes may directly or indirectly affect specific groups[v]. Second, the ACA contains many tax breaks to help businesses cope with the cost of new healthcare: Advanced Premium Tax Credits (tax break): Low-to-middle income Americans are eligible for tax credits which reduce the upfront cost of premiums on health insurance purchased through their State's "Health Insurance Marketplace". Small Business Tax Credits (tax break): Small businesses may be eligible for tax credits of up to 50% of their cost of employee premiums through the Small Business Health Options Program. The main new taxes follow as: • 2.3% Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers 2014R32;R32; • 10% Tax on Indoor Tanning Services 2014R32; R32;• Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax HikeR32; R32;• Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals, which fail to comply with the requirements of ObamacareR32;R32; • Tax on Brand Name DrugsR32;R32; • Tax on Health InsurersR32; R32;• $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance ExecutivesR32;R32; • Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D R32;R32; R32;R32;• Medicare Part A Tax increase of .9% over $200k/$250k So there is a fairly comprehensive list. What you will notice is that many of these new taxes are highly unlikely to affect the average tax-paying citizen. Many of these taxes are on insurance companies and manufacturers. This will raise large amounts of money for the federal government that will offset the cost of Medicaid Expansion and new subsidies. So could Con please detail what he objects to with the new array of taxes and the specific tax he means when he writes ‘even on the sale of your home’. ‘The Independent Payment Advisory Board. ’ First, allow me to make clear what IPAB is: ‘The Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, is a fifteen-member United States Government agency created in 2010 by sections 3403 and 10320 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which has the explicit task of achieving specified savings in Medicare without affecting coverage or quality.[vi]’ IPAB is just a steering committee tasked with making savings in Medicare without affecting coverage or quality. Despite what Con says, it is mandated against ‘rationing’ and is just tasked with making appropriate savings within an enormous government program. It seems an unusual anti-ACA argument to make against a committee trying to reduce the federal deficit. ‘State exchanges...’ Rather than ‘vast new bureaucracies’ the exchanges are a) optional, the state is not ‘compelled to set up’ anything and b) as vast as the state chooses them to be. The exchanges are online platforms that allow families to compare health care packages and make it easy to select coverage. A family earning $90,000 dollars a year is certainly a taxpayer so could Con please explain what they meant about the handouts? The subsidies are designed to help families deal with the cost of healthcare, what is the objection? ‘159 new boards, agencies, and programs...’ As we are now past the election where the American people voted for the ACA I stuggle to see how the point stands. Could Con elaborate? ‘Huge deficits...’ I have saved this argument for last because it is the most misleading, read this source on the actual cost of the ACA: What is the cost of ObamaCare? ObamaCare, Obama's new health care law, has a massive impact on health care costs. ObamaCare's cost is estimated at up to net cost of $1.36 trillion dollars by 2023. Although Obamacare's net costs are in the trillions, the law actually reduces the growth in health care spending by tens of billions each year, reduces health care costs for many Americans, helps to insure tens of millions and is estimated to result in an overall net decrease of the deficit[vii]. So lets make this clear, the ACA reduces the deficit. Obamacare's net cost is estimated to be $1.1 trillion. This number is an updated estimate by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) 2012. However, a number of factors including taxes, fees and penalties will reduce the federal deficits by $210 billion over the 2012-2021 period. Closing Remarks May I remind Con that their round two should be refuting the points I made in my round one arguments! I wish Con the very best of luck and look forward to posting for round 3. [1] Letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association (Jan. 1, 1802), available at http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu... (last visited July 20, 2012). [2] Id. [i] [ii] The Affordable Care Act and Religious Freedom: The Next Battleground. by. Terri Day* and Leticia Diaz [iii] The Affordable Care Act and Religious Freedom: The Next Battleground. by. Terri Day* and Leticia Diaz [iv] http://www.patheos.com... [v] http://obamacarefacts.com... [vi] http://www.ama-assn.org... [vii] http://obamacarefacts.com...