Obamacare should be repealed.

1. Entitlements should only be passed by consensus Con argues that Obamacare passed both houses of Congress by more than a majority. Of course it did. My point, however, was that for the first time in history there was negligible bipartisan participation in enacting a major entitlement. that's bad governance. Con argues that ramming it through without debate was necessary, because otherwise Republicans might have delayed or blocked it. Yes, and that's the argument against all absolute rule: it tramples on the minority. The legislation makes a major change in American society, bringing nearly 20% of the economy under Federal control. That's too big a step to have it rammed through without vetting and compromise. Con argues that the individual mandate was put in the bill at the insistence of Republicans. That is not the case, “On March 23, 2010, the day that President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law, fourteen [Republican] state attorneys general filed suit against the law’s requirement that most Americans purchase health insurance, on the ground that it was unconstitutional.” [12. http://tinyurl.com... ] Conservatives had once viewed the individual mandate favorably, but by the time Obamacare was proposed the evidence had turned conservatives against it. The free rider argument is plausible, but what happens in practice is that young earners whose need for medical care is minimal are taxed to benefit older people. That's unfair. Worse, government invariable uses the mandate as an excuse to write detailed rules for exactly how health care is carried out. Republicans offered alternative legislation to Obamacare at the time. [13. http://tinyurl.com... ] It featured tort reform, interstate competition for insurance, and individual deductibility of insurance premiums. There was no mystery whatsoever as to what Republicans wanted. The Democrats offered no compromise on any of what the Republicans wanted. For example, the Democrats might have offered a high cap on lawsuit settlements or losers paying a fraction of court costs. They made no attempt at compromise that might have garnered some bipartisan support. My argument is that major changes in society need not just a majority, but significant consensus. That did not happen, so Obamacare should be repealed. Health care can then be considered incrementally, as it should have been. Con argues that Republicans passed a lengthy Transportation Bill, so Obamacare should not be criticized for it's length. Perhaps Republicans screwed up, or maybe it was a long list of drainage ditches and bridge repairs. The problem with the PPACA is that it combines length with incomprehensibility. I small fraction of the bill was expanded to 13,000 pages of a additions to the tax code, and we have yet to see the work of the 150 agencies and boards that will tell us what is allowed in health care. 2. Obamacare is not affordable The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the cost of legislation according to mandated narrow assumptions. Originally, CBO scored Obamacare as costing $925 billion. My opponent presented a graph from that appraisal [14. http://tinyurl.com... ] Since then CBO has revised their estimate for the cost upwards, to $1.76 trillion. [6]. More importantly, as I argued in R2, the CBO scoring approach omits a likely four or five trillion in costs. It doesn't include the cost of reducing Medicare ($500 billion), tax compliance costs ($2 trillion), revenue shortfall by tax avoidance, costs from undersubscription ($2 trillion), or costs passed to the states to increase Medicaid. As it stands, the CBO only considers the impact on the Federal deficits. Aside from the individual mandate, there are 21 new taxes in the bill. Increasing taxes helps minimize the deficit, but it's still part of the cost. The cost is born by the people who pay taxes. The bulk of the new taxes are on health care, which is not going to reduce health care costs. My opponent claims that “empirical evidence” from the Administration “found that Obamacare cuts the costs of health care insurance by $2,300 for a middle class family.” Empirical means observed. The claims of reductions are for 2014, so clearly they have not been observed. They are wildly optimistic projections. The 2010 study made projections for 2011, so we can see how it's going. The bottom of page 3 of the report [Con's 4] says, “It [Obamacare] includes several provisions that tackle health care costs immediately, including: ...” and it list six provisions of the legislation that took effect in 2010 claimed to immediately reduce insurance costs. In fact, “Health insurance premiums shot up 9 percent in 2011, nearly three times the rate of inflation...” [15. http://tinyurl.com... ] The Administration could not appraise the effects of the legislation even one year out. 2010 estimates for 2014 lack any credibility. Con addressed the funding of Medicare by pointing to a blog that says that Medicare benefits are not cut. Magically, the benefits are not cut while funding for Medicare is cut by $545 billion. The theory is that efficiencies derived from the government micromanaging health care will enable benefits to be maintain despite the cuts. That's not plausible. What will actually happen is that when panels start to ration care, Medicare recipients will protest and Congress will restore the funding. Con argues, without support, that employers will not choose to turn employees over to the government health exchanges rather than providing insurance as a benefit in the numbers cited. Two independent estimates contradict Con's claim, both putting the number at around 100 million employees who will be shunted into the exchanges. “Simple economics is the reason.” Con points to the employer tax credit for employers paying for health insurance. The maximum tax credit is 50% of the employer contribution, but there are many limitations that make it worth much less. [17. http://libertyandpride.com...] We have the results. “..despite original estimates that 4 million small businesses would be eligible for and benefit from Obamacare’s small business tax credit, only 28,100 employers claimed the full credit amount. The Government Accountability Office even concluded that the credit was not big enough to incentivize employers to offer coverage and was too complex and time-consuming to file for. .., The tax credit eventually phases out in 2016” [18. http://tinyurl.com... ] 3. Obamacare is an unacceptable loss of freedom My opponent had nothing to say about the loss of freedom to select insurance products and to participate in health care decisions. R3: Access Coverage for pre-existing conditions ought to be considered anew, separate from the baggage of Obamacare. California requires that once you have any insurance, you can change providers or keep the insurer without penalty. That's a reasonable compromises that makes insurance companies to compete. Con says “Death panels? This is ridiculus.[sic]” I never mentioned death panels. Obama clearly stated that the individual physicians appraisal of what constitutes appropriate care will not count. The 100 year old lady got her pacemaker and lived on in comfort, another five years when last checked. Not under Obamacare. Medicare already provides proof of doctor's refusing to work under the government terms and conditions. Medicare has produced substantial shortages of geriatricians. [19. http://www.utsandiego.com...] Obamacare is just beginning. The latest poll is that 83% of physicians have thought about quitting over the health care takeover. [20. http://tinyurl.com...] Proponents of nationalized care have not come to grips with the basics of supply and demand. All evidence is that supply will decrease. Prices inevitably will rise, and at the same time care, including preventive care, will decrease. The resolution is affirmed. Repeal Obamacare.