“Roughly half of the anticipated gains in insurance coverage from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) are achieved through a massive expansion of Medicaid, the joint federal–state health insurance program for the poor. The Medicaid program, with its soaring price tag and dubious level of care for recipients, is in serious need of reform, not expansion. Increasing enrollment in this program by a third is a major flaw of the new health care law.”
“The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) contains several provisions that weaken longstanding federal policy denying public subsidies for elective abortion and health care plans that provide coverage of elective abortion. In addition, PPACA fails to adequately protect the conscience rights of health care insurers, providers, and personnel who decline to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions. These defects in PPACA not only fail to fix the patchwork of laws that have been passed to bar federal support for elective abortion; they also create new avenues for federal subsidies and promotion of elective abortion.”
“Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), Congress has enacted record-breaking Medicare payment reductions. Most of these are reductions in Medicare payment updates to non-physician providers. To a lesser degree, these reductions are attributable to certain health care delivery reforms. The Office of the Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the agency that administers the Medicare and Medicaid programs, estimates an initial 10-year savings from the total set of Medicare changes amounting to $575 billion.”
“The truth is that the issue of preexisting-condition exclusions is yet another example in ObamaCare where Congress focused on a small (though legitimate) problem with the current health system and, rather than enacting a modest and sensible solution, instead used the problem to justify an ideologically motivated, sweeping, and disruptive policy change that creates new and bigger problems than the one Congress claimed to be solving.”
“When Scott DesJarlais heard the American Medical Association was backing the Democratic health care overhaul, he cut up his membership card. Now the Tennessee doctor, who was elected to the House last fall, can express his disdain for the law more directly by voting this week to repeal it.”
Watch this video of a doctor who’s fighting against ObamaCare because it hurts her practice, both as a physician and as a small-business.
“Under Section 1334, [Office of Personnel Management]-sponsored plans would compete nationwide against private health insurance. In effect, Congress is creating a special set of plans, governed by special rules, in a closed national ‘market.’ Instead of fair competition with private health plans, Congress is sponsoring the equivalent of a national monopoly. That the OPM-sponsored plans are offered by private contractors (like Medicare contractors) is irrelevant. For consumers, it is hard to imagine anything worse than a government-sponsored ‘private’ monopoly.”
“ObamaCare’s advocates want you to believe that, without their 2,300-page, trillion-dollar extravagance, half of America would lose their health insurance. The reality is that preexisting conditions is a problem affecting a minute fraction of Americans, a problem that could be solved with a simple, one-page bill.”
“If liberals and Democrats want to make the fight over Obamacare about taxes, spending, and the budget deficit, Republicans should allow them to do so. The public has already taken sides in this fight. Taxpaying Americans are never going to be convinced that the government has found a way to give away new benefits to millions of people, with no cost to them or anyone else.”
“Ah, I know what you’re thinking. How can a law that raises the cost of labor by up to $6.00-an-hour for every worker in the country and has significant taxes on capital as well possibly be a job creator? (See my debate yesterday with the editors of USA Today over the magnitude of expected job losses these provisions will generate.) The answer: Cutler’s study ignores those things. Ignores them? Yes, ignores them.”