(The vote, originally scheduled for this week was postponed after the shooting of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona.)
Opponents have found much to dislike in The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but the open discussion provoked by Congress may lead most consumers to the reasonable conclusion that it is likely to both improve health and lower costs.
It has already provided some significant benefits. Seniors who spend heavily on prescription drugs will soon begin receiving rebate checks, and young adults are now entitled to remain on their parents’ health plans until age 26.
Tax credits are available to help small businesses cover their workers. And new rules prevent insurers from setting lifetime limits on coverage or discriminating against consumers with pre-existing conditions.
The law also provides for no-cost health screenings for senior citizens. As U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, pointed out last week, without it 250,000 Maine seniors would have to come up with copayments for diabetes and breast cancer screening.
In the long run, the law intends to establish health insurance exchanges to help individuals and families buy affordable policies. It aims to rein in Medicare costs and expand Medicaid eligibility. Its most controversial measure ”“ requiring everyone to obtain coverage ”“ recognizes the reality that our health care system serves us all.
A preliminary analysis by the Congressional Budget Office indicates that repealing the law could increase federal budget deficits by about $145 billion from the years 2012-2019. Although repeal would eliminate new costs, it would also eliminate projected Medicare savings, and new tax revenue and fees dedicated to health care reform.
Taxes and fees are, of course, unpopular. The current debate provides a good opportunity to justify them.
Containing out-of-control health care spending should be a top U.S. priority. If there are better approaches than those approved by Congress last March, now is the time to put them on the table.
Continued political debate also provides a convincing reason why federal courts should not enter the fray. Although many governors, including Maine’s Paul LePage, believe that the law is unconstitutional, such arguments are premature as long as legislative debate is continuing.
The high cost of repeal noted in the preliminary report by the Congressional Budget Office provides an entirely different economic perspective than that claimed by the GOP. It also takes note of another liability that would result from repeal: 32 million more Americans without health insurance.
Ӣ Ӣ Ӣ
Questions? Comments? Contact Managing Editor Nick Cowenhoven at nickc@journaltribune.com.
Comments are not available on this story.
Send questions/comments to the editors.
