Epsilon Delta
Jedi Master
This is a list from The Economist's blog, which analyses item by item the Republican proposals to scale back health-care reform ( http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/business/04care.html?src=busln ). They conclude that none of this things lower costs or cut the deficit in any meaningful way:
Health-reform repeal: Republican priorities on Obamacare | The Economist
It goes on to say that Republicans have also talked of eliminating the "the Independent Payment Advisory Board, an expert panel which would have the power to reduce Medicare payments without congressional approval. Eliminating the IPAB would cost $15.5 billion in this decade, according to the CBO, but more importantly, it would scrap the most promising existing mechanism for bending down the cost curve on Medicare."
Now in all honesty, there's really not much of a chance for the Republicans to go ahead and totally scrap the bill; the Senate and White House would not allow it. So they have to I suppose propose things that dismantle it to please their constituents. But at the same time none of these measures really do much for anything of the two key issues of cost and deficit. What do you guys think, especially Republicans I guess, is it important (either for real policy reasons or simply political reasons) to go through with these as a matter of principle or should the priority be doing things that actually solve the core problems?
Comment away, and feel free to bring your own sources.
The Economist said:Repealing the "1099 rule", which would require businesses to file 1099s for anyone to whom they paid $600 or more. Repeal of the rule is probably a good idea and is supported by Barack Obama and many Democrats, but it would increase the cumulative deficit by $17 billion over the next ten years.
Eliminating the provision requiring employers to contribute to the cost of insurance coverage. This will have no effect on the cost of health care, but will force employees to pay more for their health insurance. If the government then has to replace employers' contributions with more subsidies to make sure workers can afford to buy the insurance they're required to have, that would mean more government spending, which would increase the deficit.
Eliminating the tax on high-cost employer-sponsored health plans. This would raise the cost of health care and insurance, and deprive the government of tens of billions of dollars per year in revenue, raising the deficit.
Reducing or repealing a tax on manufacturers of medical devices. This would raise the deficit.
Allowing states more freedom to define what sorts of insurance plans will be acceptable on their exchanges. This threatens to create a race to the bottom in standards for health insurance, but probably has no significant effect on the cost of health care or on the deficit.
Reversing cuts to Medicare. The law envisioned cutting $500 billion out of Medicare over ten years. Whatever spending Republicans put back into Medicare adds to the deficit. Notably, the law envisioned cutting funding for Medicare Advantage's private-sector plans, because they're much more expensive than public-sector ones. Republicans want to continue giving taxpayer subsidies to private insurance companies.
Eliminating the mandate that requires people to buy insurance, while keeping the law's provision that insurance companies can't refuse to cover people with pre-existing conditions. This is impossible. It would drive the entire private health-insurance industry out of business. Therefore, Republicans will not actually attempt to do this, whatever they're currently saying. The question is whether they can figure out some way to force Democrats to vote to keep the mandate, allowing Republicans to evade responsibility for having failed to repeal it.
Health-reform repeal: Republican priorities on Obamacare | The Economist
It goes on to say that Republicans have also talked of eliminating the "the Independent Payment Advisory Board, an expert panel which would have the power to reduce Medicare payments without congressional approval. Eliminating the IPAB would cost $15.5 billion in this decade, according to the CBO, but more importantly, it would scrap the most promising existing mechanism for bending down the cost curve on Medicare."
Now in all honesty, there's really not much of a chance for the Republicans to go ahead and totally scrap the bill; the Senate and White House would not allow it. So they have to I suppose propose things that dismantle it to please their constituents. But at the same time none of these measures really do much for anything of the two key issues of cost and deficit. What do you guys think, especially Republicans I guess, is it important (either for real policy reasons or simply political reasons) to go through with these as a matter of principle or should the priority be doing things that actually solve the core problems?
Comment away, and feel free to bring your own sources.