Repeal of the Health Care Law Would Be Foolhardy

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act [PPAFC] was passed without Republican support or cooperation. It is universally acknowledged that the existing healthcare delivery system could not be sustained, was not cost effective and far too many individuals had no access to medical care. During the prolonged legislative process, Republicans rejected any compromise remaining steadfast in their opposition: the bill, they urged, was seriously flawed, philosophically and economically.

Republicans now have a majority in the House of Representatives and that body has passed a bill that would repeal the 2010 law, in total. It is probable that efforts to repeal will not succeed in the Senate. However the debate is renewed.

Republicans aim to return the country to where we started. Again, the GOP has not offered a comprehensive plan of its own but assures that there is such a plan, although no time table has been suggested for its presentation and slogans are offered in lieu of substance.

At this time, Republicans have not focused on specific objections to the PPAFC. The three main arguments seem to be "talking points" rather than meaningful objections.

First, it is urged that this legislation is "socialistic" or provides a "slippery slope" to socialism. This is strong emotional charge but one that doesn't address the need for health care reform. The same objections were made in the 1930's and 1965 in opposition to Social Security and Medicare and were overcome by strong progressive support. Would anyone seriously suggest elimination of either program?

Second, objections are made to requiring larger businesses and individuals to purchase health insurance coverage. While the applicability to individuals does not take place for several years and leaves time to address this requirement in later specific legislation and small businesses are not affected in any event, the concept of government requiring people or businesses to purchase insurance is neither new nor unique. Florida requires drivers to carry insurance to pay for their own medical bills and all states impose workman's compensation and unemployment insurance premiums on businesses.

Finally, a GOP argument is that the PPAFC is "job killing", and adds to the budget deficit, citing reports of the Congressional Budget Office. That assertion has been refuted by many sources; the CBO has, in fact, reported that any job loss would be minimal and that, over the next decade, the national deficit would be reduced because of the implementation of the health care reforms.

The PPAFC has important and immediate benefits. Which of these would Republicans toss out?

Children covered on their parents' health policy would continue to be covered until age 26. People with cancer, kidney failure or other long-term conditions can no longer be denied coverage because of lifetime caps on benefits.

Health insurance companies have to offer the same premium to all applicants of the same age, sex, and geographical location regardless of pre-existing conditions.

Affordable health care, including an expanded Medicare, is now available to 30 million more Americans; these people are no longer forced into emergency room treatment for non-emergency treatment '" at greater taxpayer expense.

The Medicare Drug program is expanded to cover more prescriptions; the "donut hole" for seniors is now reduced and will be eliminated.

Starting in January, insurance companies will have to spend at least 80 percent of the revenues they receive from premiums on actual health care. Not on salaries or overhead. This is not a "government takeover"; the insurance companies remain private. They just have to play be stricter and fairer rules.

Is the PPAFC perfect? I would prefer an expansion of some benefits and others would address specific mandates.

But to repeal the entire Act would be irresponsible.