ppaca research paper

Yuille 1

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Why ObamaCare is Actually Obama-Don’t-Care

Mick Yuille

Advanced Placement English Language and Composition

Mrs. Rebecca Barney

13 March 2011

Yuille 2

John Deere recently announced that the company will be losing over $125 million to

meet the criteria for recently passed regulations and a small restaurant owner reported

that new taxes will not allow him to do any business with salespeople in his area (“The

ObamaCare Writedowns” 6) (Moneynews 15). Moreover, Americans in their twenties

will have the price of their health insurance rise because of new rules dictating how

much health insurance companies can charge their consumers, and new rules and

regulations in the law will force some students who were planning on being a doctor to

change their minds and become something else (Watson 6) (Schlafly 12). All of these

stories are connected because they are all happening due to the passing of the Patient

Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), which was signed into law on March 23

by President Barack Obama. The PPACA is the landmark legislation of the Obama

administration, as the process to make the bill become a law took over six months to

complete. The main purpose of the PPACA is to reform the health care industry and

make health insurance available to every American citizen. However, the policies are

going to have the reverse effect in this country as they will have a negative influence on

almost all aspects on the American way of life, from businesses attempting to make a

profit to the amount of doctors available in the next decade. Because of this adverse

effect that the PPACA has on America’s economy and on Americans’ quality of health

care, the states or Congress must challenge the Obama administration in order to stop

the law from being implemented.

There is much more to the PPACA than just what is in it. For one, it is not the first

piece of legislation that addresses the issues associated with the health care industry.

Yuille 3

In fact, there is a long history of attempts at health care reform in the United States.

Many Presidents and Governors have failed and few have succeeded in their attempts

to solve this nationwide issue. In fact, this is one of the topics in American history that

has been around the longest and has stayed relatively unchanged throughout. The first

attempt at true health care reform was done by Progressives in the early 1900s, which

were supported by former President Theodore Roosevelt. However, their campaign

failed early on as it never gained traction with the public. Similar legislation attempts

were attempted by Theodore Roosevelt’s cousin, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and

President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s successor, President Harry Truman, but to no avail.

The United States then went almost fifty years with only one more failed attempt, that

time by President Richard Nixon. Up to 1993, the only attempts at health care reform

failed miserably and had no chance at being passed as law. However, people in favor of

health care reform had their best chance in succeeding during the Clinton

administration, when Congress introduced a health care bill. Dubbed “HillaryCare” after

then First Lady Hillary Clinton, the bill did have initial support. Nonetheless, the bill

ended up falling out of favor with the public and failed before it even passed one

chamber of Congress. While health care reform has always been a failure when

attempted by the federal government, states have been successful in getting legislation

passed. For instance, Massachusetts’ health care reform bill, which the PPACA was

partly modeled after, went into effect five years ago (Schlafly 6). These past attempts

have shown why the President’s health care law is such a big deal, as it was the first

Yuille 4

pure health care reform bill to pass through the United States Congress and later

become a law.

Similarly, how the bill was passed through Congress and how it became a law is also

almost as important as what is in it. This is because the PPACA experienced an

unusual journey through the United States Congress. Normally, bills go through the

United States House of Representatives and then the United States Senate, and if they

are passed by both chambers, the bill is sent to the President’s desk for him to either

sign it into law or veto it. However, mainly because the opposition to the bill was so

strong, the bill had to adopt tactics that have not been used in years in order to succeed

in their task. Before this law was introduced as a bill to the United States House of

Representatives in the summer of 2009, the topic of health care was a polarizing one.

The bill landed in front of the Senate right before the Congress takes their August

recess, and during that time, Congressman in favor of the bill held town hall meetings.

During this time, the town hall meetings were known for the constant yelling between

the group in favor of the bill and the group that was against the bill. After Congress

returned, the most publicized and controversial provision of the bill, which would have

set up a government-run health insurance, was eliminated from the Senate version of

the bill due to public outcry over it. However, despite the overwhelming support the bill

had from Democrats, there were some holdouts that could have killed the legislation if

they voted against it. In order to make sure that this did not happen, Senate Leader

Harry Reid (D-NV) offered the “Cornhusker Kickback,” which stretched the limit of

Medicaid to Nebraskans who have an income that is no more than one hundred and

Yuille 5

thirty-three percent above the poverty level, to Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) and he

offered the “Louisiana Purchase,” which set up a special fund that only Louisiana could

qualify for, to Senator Marry Landrieu (D-LA) in to get their votes (Orient 12) (13).

Senator Reid’s plan succeeded and the bill passed to the United States House of

Representatives. This is where the debate turned most heated as the bill was debated

and revised for months before in came to a vote in March, 2010. The bill barely passed

and went to the Senate, where they had to vote on the revised bill. This vote, however,

was a special vote because the Democrats did not have to get the normal sixty votes to

get the bill passed by using a little known process called reconciliation, which allows

only a simple majority to move legislation. Because of this, they were able to get the bill

to pass and Barack Obama signed the bill into law on March 23, 2010. This abnormal

process shows how controversial this legislation was and why so many people were

upset when it finally passed.

Furthermore, there was as much controversy over how it was passed than what was

passed. This is because many Americans were highly critical of the process that the

Democrats used to get the health care reform bill passed through Congress. They

believed that the Democrats’ actions were unprecedented and that they should not have

been allowed to do what they did. For instance, the Democrats were ramming through

this piece of legislation despite the fact that the bill was over 2,500 pages (“Obamacare

‘Most Unconstitutional…”) 1). Not only does this make reading the bill very complicated,

but it is also makes it very time-consuming. This resulted in there not being enough time

for anyone to read the bill before they took a vote on it. Obviously, this means that

Yuille 6

Congressmen were voting on a piece of legislation that they did not even read, which

means they were voting on something that they had no idea what was in it. However,

Democrats were not afraid to admit that this was happening as then Speaker of the

House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) proudly stated that “we have to pass the bill so that you can

find out what is in it” (Orient 1). Furthermore, Representative John Conyers (D-MI)

stated, “What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages long and you don’t have

two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?” (1).

Intensifying the uproar even more was when the Senate used the process known as

reconciliation to finally pass the bill. The reason why it garnered so much controversy

was because in early January, Scott Brown (R-MA) defeated a Democrat in the election

for the open seat vacated by former Senator Ted Kennedy. Scott Brown’s victory made

it so that there were only fifty-nine Democratic Senators, which is one short of the

normal sixty needed to pass a bill. At this point, most people thought that the legislation

was dead until the Democrats came up with the idea to use reconciliation. To the

opponents of the bill, this was a corrupt, unconstitutional way of going around the

system to get what they want. These criticisms do have a lot of merit, as the process of

making the bill become a law was foreshadowing of the turmoil that this law will cause if

ever implemented.

There are many problems that would be caused by the PPACA, negatively affecting

the economy and the health care industry. Regarding the economy, one of the biggest

problems with the implementation of the PPACA is the increase of the amount of taxes

that every American will have to pay. These new taxes and tax increases were put into

Yuille 7

the PPACA by the Democrats in their attempt to lower the deficit caused by the new

health care law as far as they possibly can. The new tax system will not only confuse

the taxpayer, but it will also take more money from their wallet that they could have

used towards other purposes. The methods of how the new health care law raises taxes

are almost as creative as they are controversial. In all, the new law will force the

taxpayer to pay a trillion dollars more in taxes (Anderson 11). One of the new taxes in

the PPACA that will be implemented starts in seven years and is known as the “Cadillac

tax” (Orient 16). The reason why it is called that is because it levies a tax of forty

percent on people who have health insurance that costs above a certain dollar value

(16). The proponents of this new tax will argue that this is how the people with the

expensive health insurances policies will pay their fare share; however, because the

minimum dollar value that makes an American pay this will not be adjusted by the rate

of inflation for medical costs, this tax will start to include more of the middle-class as the

years go forward (16). Another glaring example of a new tax implemented by the

PPACA is perhaps the most controversial provision of this law. This tax, called the

“individual mandate,” forces Americans to purchase some form of health insurance over

the next three years (Woodward 18). If they do not, they will face a tax of a flat price or

a percentage of their income, whichever is greater (Moffit 5). The flat price will increase

in its amount over the first couple of years of being law and will almost be seven-

hundred dollars in 2016 (5). Because of taxes like these, Americans will have less

money of their own, reducing the amount of money they can use to shop. This will

Yuille 8

decrease the amount of money circulating in the economy, which will put America

further into its current recession.

Another reason why the new law damages the economy is because it forces

businesses of all sizes to lose a lot of money. These monetary damages are caused by

provisions in the law that are attempting to improve the health care of Americans by

forcing firms to comply with unreasonable regulations; such as making businesses offer,

no matter if they are making a profit or not, health insurance for their employees or face

a penalty. The problems associated with losing a lot of money are causing more

problems for some businesses that cannot cope without making drastic changes. For

instance, the company AT&T reported shortly after the PPACA was signed into law that

it is the reason for their billion dollar writedown (“The ObamaCare Writedowns” 6).

Accordingly, Abbot Laboratories have been forced to cut almost 3,000 jobs and a small

business that produces fire trucks in Nebraska reported that certain provisions in the

PPACA will cost them over $20,000 (Stewart 1) (Moneynews 14). Unfortunately, the

penalties for not complying with the new laws are just as bad as the amount it costs to

comply with them. One of the more notorious penalties is caused by the “employer

mandate” (Blase 5). This provision states that an employer will have to pay a penalty of

three-thousand dollars for every employee who qualifies for and accepts a subsidy for

his/her health insurance from the federal government (Book 2). This means that

businesses that hire a lot of people but do not offer health insurance will be paying a lot

of money in penalties. This could cause employers to lay off people or stop hiring to

prevent the amount of money that they will lose. Even worse, because the qualifications

Yuille 9

of an employee are based on his/her household income, the salary of an employee’s

spouse is just as important to the business as the employee’s salary (2). Theoretically, a

business could have to pay this penalty if the spouse of one of their employees loses

their job (Book 2). This regulation could have widespread consequences, as almost

thirty-three percent of employers in American could have to pay this penalty (Orient 11).

Regulations that will cause businesses to lose money no matter what they do will hurt

the economy because not only are businesses losing money, but because they are

laying people off because of it, causing the unemployment rate to increase. Obviously,

no economy can prosper when this occurs.

A third reason why the PPACA is hurting America’s economy is because it is

contributing to the bankruptcy of this country. Over the past century, politicians in office

have been spending money on different programs without having enough taxpayer

money to pay for them. The money the government does not technically have but

spends anyway adds on to the national debt, which is currently at somewhere around

fourteen trillion dollars. Unfortunately, due to the President’s insistence that spending is

necessary to solve the health insurance issue, the PPACA will not contribute to solving

the problem. In fact, the PPACA is going to cost two and a half trillion dollars in its first

ten years of being implemented (Anderson 11). One of the main reasons for the law

costing so much money is because to insure one person who did not have health

insurance before the PPACA costs about $80,000 (5). This problem is exemplified when

it is figured that the PPACA will contribute to the coverage of over thirty million people

(9). Unfortunately, the actual costs will likely be more than the projected costs. This is

Yuille 10

not based solely on speculation, as the similar Massachusetts health care law that

passed in 2006 has not lived up to expectations as the amount of money to sponsor it

has been more than what people had previously thought (“(1/2011) Obamacare: A…”

4). Sooner than later, the great amount of spending done by this country is going to

cause a great economic catastrophe when the government defaults on their loans and

they officially become bankrupt. The government needs to prevent this from happening,

which will not be done by enacting a single piece of legislation that would add this much

to the national debt.

Unfortunately, the economy is not the only sector of America that will be negatively

influenced by the PPACA; as the quality of health care received by Americans is also

going to get a shellacking. One reason why the quality of health care will worsen due to

the new law is because of the fact that, ironically, people’s health insurance prices are

going to increase or they are going to lose their coverage altogether. The reason why it

is ironic is because the whole priority of this law was to lower the cost of health

insurance and increase the amount of Americans who own it. In other words, the strain

that the PPACA puts on providers is so grand that the result is the opposite of what was

originally intended. Now, Americans with health insurance will have to decide what they

are going to do as they witness the issue become greater and greater. All in all, over the

decade, the price of health insurance is predicted to rise by over $18,000 (Roy 2). This

process has already gone underway as health insurance companies have requested to

raise the price of their premiums (Crawshaw 1). A couple of these companies are the

Celtic Insurance Company, which states that 50 percent of their requested increases in

Yuille 11

two states are due to provisions in the new health care law, and Aetna Insurance, which

is raising their plans by two percent in California (7) (5). However, these problems are

not just the problems of health insurance companies alone, as private businesses that

offer health care coverage for their employees are also being forced to reconsider. For

example, Principle Financial Group has announced that it will quit providing health

insurance to its nearly 850,000 employees and McDonald’s is going to have to stop

providing coverage to over 25,000 of their employees (“Small health insurers…” 1)

(“ObamaCare serving up…” 1). The health care of Americans will suffer heavily

because the majority of people who have health insurance will either lose it or be barely

able to afford it. Also, the increase in price makes it harder for anyone who wants health

insurance to be able to get it, decreasing the amount of people who will own health

insurance. This will hurt those people as they will not be able to afford their hospital

fees, but also it will but a drain on the health care system as the people without

coverage will go to the emergency room for health issues.

Another reason why the health care of Americans will be worse after the PPACA is

fully implemented is because of the dreaded “R” word: rationing. Rationing is when a

certain good or service is distributed in fixed portions, and in the case of the PPACA,

health care is what would be rationed. Although an unpopular move by Democrats,

these provisions were put into place to keep the overall cost of the new health care law

low. With rationing in place, people will not be receiving lifesaving treatments because

they are too expensive. Typically, this is the result of most health care laws like the

PPACA, because in a single-payer health care system, health care rationing is

Yuille 12

inevitable (Smith 6). The most severe provision in the PPACA promoting rationing is

how it allows the federal government to use “evidence based medicine” when deciding

how to lower the price of health care (“(1/2011) Obamacare: A…” 3). One way that this

will be able to happen is because “Comparative Effectiveness Research,” which decides

what treatments will be covered based on the success rate of it; will be used for the first

time (8). With the CER in effect, the federal government would be able to refuse to

cover treatment of people solely because the research does not prove that it is effective

(8). This is misguided, however, as no two diseases are exactly the same and they will

not always respond identically to the same kind of treatment (5). As Dr. Jeffrey English

points out, “Medicine is much more of an art. Medical decisions are based on basic

knowledge of human diseases and the application of existing therapies at any one time

for an individual” (3). Unfortunately, there is no doubt about what is going to happen

when the PPACA is fully implanted, as a similar style health care law in Oregon has

permitted rationing since the early nineties (Smith 7). The policies in Oregon are not

pretty, as chemotherapy is not covered for a patient if their prognosis is that they have a

ninety-five percent or more chance of dying over the next half decade (8). This law will

cause American’s quality of health care to decrease as necessary treatment for

diseases will not be covered based on factors that nobody can control. This means that

the law will cause more people to die from diseases that could have been treated in the

past.

The third problem affecting the quality of health care of all Americans is a shortage of

physicians. The PPACA makes this a problem because it creates an atmosphere where

Yuille 13

more people will be covered by health insurance than there are doctors available. This

will cause longer waiting times for doctor appointments and will delay necessary

treatment for the ill. This inherent problem occurs anytime the health care industry is

flooded with a lot of recently insured people, which in this case is over thirty million

(Anderson 9). This is not the first time that this will happen in America, however, as a

similar event happened in Massachusetts when they passed their health care bill in

2006. Huge lines started to form because so many people got health insurance

coverage so fast (Schlafly 7). It is so horrendous that a simple physical might have to be

scheduled for almost twelve months in advance if someone wants to have it on a

desired date (7). Moreover, the average waiting period just to see a doctor in the city of

Boston is fifty days, almost twice as much as the city with the next longest wait time

period (Sherwood 4). However, there is one difference between the Massachusetts

health care law and the PPACA: The new health care law is driving doctors out of their

profession. Due to new rules and regulations, hospitals are laying off more doctors and

they are making it inhospitable for doctors to continue their practice (Nix 1). In fact, in a

survey conducted in December of last year by the Physicians Foundation, three-fifths of

doctors said that they will cut time with their patients and two-fifths said they will stop

practicing in the next half decade (“A survey of…” 1). In other words, in the next decade,

there will be a large amount of new patients entering the system and a large amount of

physicians leaving the system. All of this leads to a total doctor shortage of over 80,000

doctors (Nix 2). Being forced to wait long periods of time for doctors will damage the

quality of American’s health care because they will not be able to get their necessary

Yuille 14

care immediately. This might lead to dangerous situations where diseases will not be

caught early or treated timely.

Fortunately, there are numerous ways that the provisions that would ruin the

economy and would decrease the quality of health care in America can be stopped.

Many of these solutions fall under the responsibility of the states, as there are a couple

of different ways that they can challenge the federal government on this issue. One way

that the states can challenge the Obama administration is through the United States

court system. By doing so, if the states are able to prove that this new health care is

unconstitutional in any way, the PPACA would be considered void. The process of

completing the necessary steps in accomplishing this feat is simple. Actually, the

process of doing this is only a couple of steps. The first step that needs to happen is the

attorney general of a state filing a lawsuit on behalf of their state against the federal

government regarding a law. Then, all they have to do is prove in the court of law that

the law should not be implemented. This process starts in district courts, but as

decisions are made, appeals will be filed until this issue reaches the Supreme Court.

Regarding the President’s health care law, the states are challenging the law based on

the aforementioned provision known as the individual mandate. Over twenty states are

currently participating in a couple of different lawsuits, all of which are surrounding the

section of the PPACA that orders every American to buy some form of health insurance

over the next three years or face a monetary penalty (Woodward 18). The states have

an excellent chance of prevailing in their lawsuits, as people against the law have made

it known that it is unconstitutional. For instance, they have pointed out that the

Yuille 15

government’s argument that a clause in the Constitution allowing Congress to regulate

commerce gives them the ability to force people to purchase health care is a fallacy

because not only did the founding fathers not put this clause in the Constitution to force

people to buy a private product, but because it would mean that the government has

absolutely no limits on their power (“ObamaCare and the…” 1) (2). As political analysis

Yuval Levin points out, “By the same logic, a person’s choice not to jog or to eat broccoli

could add to the burden of our health care costs, so the government could mandate that

the person exercise and eat his vegetables” (Levin 8). People against the bill have also

pointed out how the government’s other argument saying that Congress is allowed to

levy taxes is incorrect because the government cannot use taxes as a regulation

(“ObamaCare and the…” 4). In fact the Supreme Court has already ruled in the past

that Congress cannot do this (Levin 4). Since the majority of decisions made by the

Supreme Court are based on precedent, the possibility of the Supreme Court ruling it

unconstitutional is extremely likely. Even more uplifting, two district court judges have

already ruled that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, with one saying that since

there is no severability clause in the PPACA, the entire law is null (“A federal judge…”

1) (Moneynews 2). If the states are successful in their pursuit of getting the Supreme

Court to rule the law unconstitutional, the law would immediately be thrown out and

none of the problems that the law causes would have a chance to wreak their havoc.

Another way that the states can challenge the federal government on the health care

law is by forming an interstate compact. A compact is when two or more states come

together and take the jurisdiction of an issue away from the federal government. In other

Yuille 16

words, this process strips the federal government of the right to make laws concerning a

topic and hands it to the states. Regarding the PPACA, the states would be taking away

the power from the federal level to rule on issues relating to the health care and health

insurance of Americans. With the power in the hands of the states, any state that wants

to repeal the health care law would be able to and protect their citizens from its awful

rules and regulations. This procedure of nullifying a law has been proven to be effective

in the past as states have been successful in getting more power over 180 times

(Barnes 5). Accordingly, this strategy to get rid of the new health care law is becoming

more of a possibility every week as more states are introducing legislation that would

make them apart of the compact. As of March 1, 2011, there are five states that have

passed legislation favoring the compact and two states that have legislatures that are

debating whether they should pass it or not (Sealover 5). The most recent state to start

mulling over if they should join the compact is Colorado, where Republicans in the

legislature introduced the bill on the first day of March (1). Another reason for attempting

to form a compact like this is that it will give the states more power in Washington on

this issue (Barnes 7). Since there are a lot of Democrats up for reelection in less than

two years, if their state passes a compact bill, they could be pressured to vote along

with their state’s political view, even if they supported the health care law (7). Giving the

states the responsibility to make decisions on health care laws would enable them to

take the PPACA apart and to get rid of the provisions that would do harm to their

citizens.

Yuille 17

Even though the states are a major factor in if the provisions of the PPACA are

implemented or not, they are not by any means the only governing body that has a say

on what is going to happen; as Congress could do just as much to get rid of the new law

themselves. One way that Congress could offer a solution to the problems introduced in

the health care law is by repealing the entire law or just the worst provisions of it. This

solution has been talked about as a possibility in the political circles ever since the night

when the Republicans took back the House of Representatives with an enormous

majority and lowered the gap between them and the Democrats in the Senate.

Moreover, since a lot of those Democrats are going for reelection in 2012 and because

the health care law is very unpopular with the public, some Senate Democrats could

vote for a repulsion even if they support the law. A full out repeal would be the quickest

way to get rid of the problems associated with the new health care law, since it would

eliminate the law like it was never passed in the first place. This would undoubtedly

pass the House of Representatives with a chance of being able to pass in the Senate.

However, the bill would not get any further as Obama would not sign into law something

that would get rid of his landmark legislation. Nonetheless, this is not as bad as it

sounds as there is a great chance of a Republican being voted as president in 2012.

With a Republican in the White House and a possibility of gaining more seats in the

Senate, a full out repeal bill would pass and become law early in 2013, almost a year

before most of the provisions of the PPACA go into effect. Another route to repeal the

health care law is by taking advantage of the Congressional Review Act, which allows

members of Congress to block rules and regulations that damage the health insurance

Yuille 18

industry (Owcharenko 2). Like a full out repeal, this would enable Congress to

completely eliminate the law. However, a difference is that this allows discretion,

meaning the Republicans could focus on the worst provisions. This way, they could

without a doubt get rid of the regulations that pose the biggest threat and worry about

getting rid of the rest later. Yet another way to repeal the PPACA is by defunding all of

the money allocated for it (Woodward 7). Without being funded, most, if not all of the

law would not be able to go into action. Another advantage of this is that Congress can,

like the Congressional Review Act, pick and choose what provisions they want to

defund. For instance, they could block the funding of the IRS that allows them to

enforce the individual mandate (Owcharenko 1). This would effectively eliminate the

provision, even if it is still technically a law. The repulsion of either the law or the money

that funds the law would make sure that the problems caused by the PPACA would

never occur and the would-be victims of them would be saved.

The chances of a repulsion of Obama’s health care law are increased if an

alternative that will actually solve the health insurance issue in America is introduced.

The way that this would happen is if the Republicans are able to complete their strategy

of repealing the health care law and then replacing it with their own ideas of effective

reform. By doing so, not only would problems from the PPACA go away, but quality

programs would be brought in that fix the problems that existed before the health care

law became a law. One solution that would go a far way in lowering health care costs is

ending the opportunity for frivolous lawsuits to exist, which is known as tort reform (Roy

5). With tort reform in place, hospitals would not have to pay as much in legal fees and

Yuille 19

would not have to pass on the costs to their patients. Likewise, legitimate lawsuits would

be recognized as such and would not be met with the level of skepticism that they are

today. Another idea that is not in the current health care law but would improve the price

of health insurance is to allow people to buy insurance across state lines (Roy 5). What

this would do is end state-only policies, where people can only buy health insurance in

their own state. This would obviously improve competition, as a health insurance

company in Washington would now have to compete against one in North Carolina, and

a health insurance company in California would have to compete against one in

Michigan. A third idea that has been discussed since the health care debate began is to

allow health insurance companies to offer lower prices to healthier people (Anderson 2).

This is very possible because it only takes a simple change to the current regulations to

get rid of the law prohibiting this practice. By putting a monetary value on being healthy,

more people will stay in shape and try to get the lowest cost they can get. Finally,

ending the tax on people who buy their own health insurance would significantly

increase the amount of people who could own health insurance (2). Like the last

solution, this can be done by a simple change in the current laws. This would improve

the situation because it would lower the overall cost of self owning health insurance. In

other words, the tax that makes affordable health insurance unaffordable would be

eliminated. By implementing better ideas into the debate, the elimination of the new

health care law is more likely to take place since people will want the intelligent policies

over the dunderheaded policies.

Yuille 20

The last act that Congress can do that would help solve some of the problems

related with the new health care law is to work with Congressional Democrats and

President Obama to eliminate provisions from the law that the majority of Americans

dislike. This is the most likely situation to get done, as Republicans control the House of

Representatives, the Democrats control the Senate, and most importantly, Obama

controls the White House. As long as he is in office, the only way that anything going

through Congress becomes law is if he signs it, meaning he has to agree with it. Even

though everything currently in the law was put in there in part because Obama wanted it

in there, public opposition to certain provisions is more than enough to get him to

change his opinion on a few of them. In other words, in his hope of become reelected,

Obama has to take out the sections of the law that the public hold the most disdain for

and look like he wants to eliminate them. This is why he stated in his State of the Union

address that he wants the provision that forces business to file out a tax form if they

purchase something over a set dollar value to be repealed (Moneynews 12). Following

the President’s footsteps are Congressional Democrats who also have to take a strong

position against unpopular rules and regulations in the PPACA in order to get reelected

as well. This is the main reason why Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and her fellow

Congressmen of the left quickly agreed with Obama about striking that provision from

the law (12). Moreover, a couple of weeks later in a bipartisan effort, the Senate

overwhelmingly voted to eliminate that provision that everyone expressed disgust over

(Wires 2). Democrats have also expressed interest in getting rid of other controversial

provisions in the health care law, like the individual mandate (Weil 1). Another hopeful

Yuille 21

sign that this democratic approach to solving these problems is possible is a statement

made by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), saying that Republicans are willing

to keep the provisions in the health care bill that do improve the health care situation in

America (Other 1). By both parties working together, the worst provisions of the PPACA

can quickly be removed before they go into effect. From states coming together to

challenge the federal government to Congress passing laws that eliminate attack the

PPACA, there are many possible ways that this law will not go into effect.

The solutions that would stop the PPACA, or at least the worst provisions of it, from

being implemented would be very beneficial for many areas of the United States. More

specifically, the solutions would greatly help America’s economy. One way that the

economy would benefit from the solutions is that Americans and American businesses

would be allowed to prosper. This benefit is very important for the economy because the

economy heavily relies on people and businesses to do well. If they struggle, the

economy will also struggle; and if they do well, the economy will also do well. The

biggest reason why the solutions will result in them doing well is because of the

elimination of all of the rancorous taxes in the PPACA. From the individual mandate to

the employer mandate, taxes that would cripple society would never be implemented.

Moreover, the bill that would replace the current law would not raises taxes on any

American (Anderson 11). This would give Americans and businesses more money,

allowing Americans to purchase more products than they normally could and allowing

businesses to expand. Furthermore, the current atmosphere of uncertainty surrounding

businesses due to the fact that they do not know how much they will be taxed in the

Yuille 22

coming years would be removed. In other words, businesses would not have to be

worried that they will lose money in the future and instead of holding on to it, they would

be able to use it in making more products or hiring more employees. These solutions

improve the economy because the unemployment rate will lower due to Americans

putting more of their money into it and businesses making more money and hiring more

people.

Another reason why the economy will benefit from these solutions is because the

national debt will not significantly increase. This is relevant since the American

government is already teetering on the edge of bankruptcy with currently being fourteen

trillion dollars in debt. The solutions will prevent an economic collapse that would be the

worst since the Great Depression. One way that this benefit is possible is because the

massive spending in the health care law will stop immediately when it is no longer a law.

By doing so, the abysmal national debt would stay where it is. Even better, if measures

are put into place to replace the President’s health care law, the national debt would

hardly increase whatsoever, if at all. This becomes evident when looking at CBO

estimates from health care bills that incorporate policies that actually fix the health

insurance issue that say that every new insured person would only cost the taxpayer

around $20,000 (Anderson 5). While this may seem like a big number, it is one-fourth

the amount that the PPACA would force on the taxpayer (Anderson 5). Ultimately, the

CBO estimates say that the real solutions will cost around a miniscule $175 billion over

the first decade of being implemented which, over the same time period, is less than ten

percent of the costs associated with the PPACA (11). This cost is so low that when

Yuille 23

coupled with cost-cutting policies, there is a great possibility that the real solutions bill

would be deficit-neutral (11). Obviously, taking trillions off of the federal budget would

keep America off the brink of bankruptcy long enough for the federal government to

solve the spending problems and keep the American economy the greatest economy in

the world.

Along with the economy, these solutions will also benefit the quality of health care in

America. The cost of health insurance will drop due to these solutions, which will,

improve the availability of health insurance. Without a doubt, this is a major issue in

America today. In fact, this issue is the reason why the new health care law exists. One

way that the cost associated with purchasing health insurance will lower is because of

tort reform. With this reform put into place, the amount of frivolous malpractice lawsuits

that take place in America would decrease (Anderson 2). Since the legal fees that

hospitals have to pay to go to court would diminish significantly, they would charge a

lower price for people to receive treatment. This means that health insurance

companies would not have to pay as much when their customers go to the hospital,

resulting in them being able to lower their prices. In other words, the amount to pay for

insurance and the amount to receive care that is not covered by the insurance will

decrease significantly. In addition, allowing people to buy health insurance across state

lines would also lower the price of health insurance. This is mainly due to the fact that

people would have more health insurance companies to choose from, resulting in higher

competition amongst the companies to keep or get clients. As everyone knows, when

the competition of an item increases, the price decreases. Accordingly, analysis of the

Yuille 24

replacement bills to the health care law says that health insurance for individuals would

fall by around seven percent and the small-group market’s prices would fall by around

eight percent (12). Another solution, eliminating the tax on the self-insured, would lower

costs because people would not have to pay a tax on their health insurance (Anderson

4). Overall, the replacement bill would lower the number of Americans who do not have

health insurance but want it by ten million people (4). As policies that lower the price of

health insurance start to be implemented, a wider income range would be able to afford

it. This obviously means that more people would be insured and that the people who

already have health insurance would not have to pay as much for it.

Another benefit that the solutions would have for the health insurance industry is that

the care that Americans receive would improve. Undoubtedly, this is important for every

American because every American wants to be treated better when they are at the

hospital, which will occur if these solutions become reality. A second reason why this is

an important benefit is because more people will be receiving care. One way that the

solutions would improve the quality of care that people are receiving is because the

policies that ration care in the PPACA will be gone. This means that the federal

government would not use the CER to assess what treatments get covered, resulting in

everybody getting whatever treatment they want. Likewise, the replacement bill does

not issue any cuts in the Medicare Advantage, which is opposite of the PPACA, which

cuts over $250 million (11). Another reason why the quality of care would improve is the

same reason why the cost of the care decreases: tort reform. This is the case because

if the legitimate cases are the only cases heard by the courts, the legitimate cases

Yuille 25

would have a better chance at winning. This would put hospitals on edge, because they

would know that if they are sued, they would most likely lose. The result of this is

obviously they would govern themselves better to make sure that no mistakes are

made. All of this would result in people receiving exceptional care, which improves the

overall health care industry in the United States. With all of these solutions in place, the

economy will rally out of the current recession and the price of health insurance would

become reasonable and the quality of care that people receive would increase.

The problems caused by the PPACA are not going to go away by themselves. If

people want to protect the United States from the law’s most damaging effects, they

have to join together and take the initiative to get rid of it. In other words, they have to

make sure that the solutions happen soon. While Congressmen might talk that they

want a full-out repeal of the law, the process will not begin unless they hear some

support of it from their constituents. In fact, the need to be reelected is so powerful that

for some Congressmen, if they are reminded that the majority of the people want the

law to be stricken from the books, be it by phone calls or protests, that they will be open

to voting for a repeal. This is the case even if they voted for the law in the first place.

This means that the driving force of what will happen next in this long debate rests on

the shoulders of the people. They started this process of getting rid of the law by voting

out the Democrats who were responsible for the PPACA becoming a law and by putting

in Republicans who will be responsible for getting rid of it. The people are also important

in making sure that nobody ever forgets about this issue. In other words, the will of the

people will determine if this law will be implemented or if it will be eliminated. The

Yuille 26

people must not back down; they must fight for what they believe in because their

victory means victory for all Americans.

Yuille 27

Works Cited

“(1/2011) Obamacare: A Straw House.” Basilandspice.com 2 Jan. 2011. General

OneFile. 7 Feb. 2011.

<http://find.galegroup.com/gtx/infomark.do?&contentSet=IAC-

Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T003&prodID=ITOF&docID=A245672767&source=

gale&userGroupName=lom_accessmich&version=1.0>.

“A federal judge ruled that Congress has no constitutional authority to require

Americans to buy health insurance--a key feature of Obamacare.” National Review 31

Dec. 2010: 4. General OneFile. Web. 7 Feb. 2011.




Anderson, Jeffrey H. “Small is beautiful: a one-page replacement for Obamacare.”

National Review 19 Apr. 2010: 28. Student Edition. Web. 9 Feb. 2011.




Yuille 28

“A survey of 100,000 doctors by the Physicians Foundation finds that 60 percent of

them will serve fewer patients because of Obamacare.” National Review 31 Dec.

2010: 6. General OneFile. Web. 7 Feb. 2011.




Barnes, Fred. “Nullifying Obamacare; Here’s one more weapon.” The Weekly Standard

3 Jan. 2011. General OneFile. Web. 7 Feb. 2011.




Blase, Brian. “Obamacare and the Employer Mandate: Cutting Jobs and Wages.”

WebMemo. 19 Jan. 2011. The Heritage Foundation. 22 Feb. 2011

<http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/01/Obamacare-and-the-Employer-

Mandate-Cutting-Jobs-and-Wages>.

Book, Robert. “The House Health Fix: Even Higher Job Killing Employment Taxes.” The

Foundry. 18 Mar. 2010. The Heritage Foundation. 22 Feb. 2011

<http://blog.heritage.org/2010/03/18/the-house-health-fix-even-higher-job-killing-

employment-taxes/>.

Yuille 29

Crawshaw, Julie. “Health Insurers Pin Rate Hikes on Obamacare.” Newsmax 8 Sept.

2010. General OneFile. Web. 8 Feb. 2011.




Levin, Yuval. “Overruling Obamacare.” The Weekly Standard 27 Dec. 2010. General

OneFile. Web. 7 Feb. 2011.


Documents&type=retrieve&tabID=T003&prodID=ITOF&docID=A244998142source=g

ale&userGroupName=lom_accessmich&version=1.0>.

Moffit, Robert E. “Obamacare and the Individual Mandate: Violating Personal Liberty

and Federalism.” WebMemo. 18 Jan. 2011. The Heritage Foundation. 22 Feb. 2011

<http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/01/Obamacare-and-the-Individual-

Mandate-Violating-Personal-Liberty-and-Federalism>.

Moneynews, John Berlau. “Suspend Obamacare Rules Until SCOTUS Decision.”

Newsmax 2 Feb. 2011. General OneFile. Web. 7 Feb. 2011.




Yuille 30

Nix, Kathryn. “Side Effects: Obamacare Accelerates Hospital Job Losses.” The

Foundry. 15 Nov. 2010. The Heritage Foundation. 22 Feb. 2011

<http://blog.heritage.org/2010/11/15/side-effects-obamacare-accelerates-hospital-job-

losses/>.

“ObamaCare and the constitution.” Reason Aug.-Sept. 2010: 12. Student Edition. Web.

9 Feb. 2011.




“ObamaCare ‘Most Unconstitutional Law in History,’ Rivkin Says; Columnist argues that

111th Congress’ legacy will be the defense a ‘steaming pile of a statute’.” OfficialSpin

27 Dec. 2010. General OneFile. Web. 7 Feb. 2011.




“ObamaCare serving up an unhappy meal at McDonald’s.” The New American 25 Oct.

2010: 8. General OneFile. Web. 8 Feb. 2011.




Yuille 31

Orient, Jane M. “‘ObamaCare’: what is in it.” Journal of American Physicians and

Surgeons 15.3 (2010): 87+. Academic OneFile. Web. 7 Feb. 2011.




Other. “Cantor: GOP Wants to Keep Parts of Obamacare.” Newsmax 30 Nov. 2010.

General OneFile. Web. 7 Feb. 2011.




Owcharenko, Nina. “Repealing Obamacare and Getting Health Care Right.” WebMemo.

9 Nov. 2010. The Heritage Foundation. 22 Feb. 2011

<http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/11/Repealing-Obamacare-and-

Getting-Health-Care-Right>.

Roy, Avik. “You think it’s pricey now? Under Obamacare, insurance premiums will rise

even faster than the deficit.” National Review 19 Apr. 2010: 18. Student Edition. Web.

9 Feb. 2011.




Yuille 32

Sealover, Ed. “GOP bill would let Colorado opt out of health care overhaul.” Denver

Business Journal 1 Mar. 2011. 22 Feb. 11

<http://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/2011/03/01/gop-bill-would-let-colorado-opt-

out-of.html>.

Schlafly, Andrew L. “ObamaCare: not what the doctor ordered.” Journal of American

Physicians and Surgeons 15.2 (2010): 57+. Academic OneFile. Web. 7 Feb. 2011.




Sherwood, Richard. “Side Effects: Get Ready to Wait for Your Health Care.” The

Foundry. 15 Apr. 2010. The Heritage Foundation. 22 Feb. 2011

<http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/15/side-effects-get-ready-to-wait-for-your-health-

care/>.

“Small health insurers can’t stay in business under ObamaCare.” The New American 25

Oct. 2010: 8. General OneFile. Web. 8 Feb. 2011.




Yuille 33

Smith, Wesley J. “About Those Death Panels . . . The very real threat of government

health care rationing.” The Weekly Standard 31 Jan. 2011. General OneFile. Web. 7

Feb. 2011.




Stewart, Brandon. “Obamacare Forces More Layoffs at Daley’s Old Firm.” The Foundry.

27 Jan. 2011. The Heritage Foundation. 22 Feb. 2011

<http://blog.heritage.org/2011/01/27/obamacare-forces-more-layoffs-at-daleys-old-

firm/>.

“The ObamaCare Writedowns.” Wall Street Journal 21 Oct. 2010. 22 Feb. 11

<http://online.wsj.com/article/

SB10001424052748704100604575146002445136066.html?

KEYWORDS=The+ObamaCare+Writedowns>.

Watson, Beth Henary. “A Bad Deal Gets Worse; Obamacare is already damaging the

individual insurance market.” The Weekly Standard 21 June 2010. Academic

OneFile. Web. 9 Feb. 2011.




Yuille 34

Weil, Dan. “Democrat McCaskill Spurns Obamacare Insurance Mandate.” Newsmax 5

Jan. 2011. General OneFile. Web. 7 Feb. 2011.




Wires, Newsmax. “Senate Repeals Part of Obamacare Burdening Small Business.”

Newsmax 3 Feb. 2011. General OneFile. Web. 7 Feb. 2011.




Woodward, Cal. “Republicans take aim at ‘Obamacare’.” CMAJ: Canadian Medical

Association Journal 182.18 (2010): 1948+. Academic OneFile. Web. 7 Feb. 2011.


