I’m a huge sports fan, so it should come as no surprise that I love head-to-head matchups, no matter where they occur. From football to fencing, I am thoroughly entertained watching two opposing sides go at it.
Thus, I much enjoyed the point-counterpoint on health care reform in today’s USA Today. The editorial staff took the pro position with its commentary, “Don’t blame health care reform for rising costs of care.”
Far from a rah-rah, sis-boom-bah endorsement of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the editorial does take the measured approach of “revisiting” reform, rather than the all-or-nothing “repeal and replace” position.
“Repeal is a non-starter as long as Obama is president and, as [a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services] study shows, it would do nothing to change the cost trajectory,” the editorial reads.
Rather, to “revisit” reform, the editors write, “will require difficult and unappetizing choices, such as higher premiums, new limits on what will and won't be covered, and new attitudes toward extraordinarily expensive end-of-life interventions … The answer to soaring costs is not to go backward and undo the benefits of health care reform, but to move on to its unfinished business.”
In the other corner, writing for the con position, is former New York governer George Pataki, and chairman of Revere America, a national organization dedicated to repealing and replacing the health care law. As if you didn’t guess from his title, the commentary’s headline makes it plain — “Opposing view on medical inflation: Repeal and replace.”
“We were told — and how many times did the president say this? — that if you were happy with your current coverage, you wouldn't need to change it at all,” Pataki writes. “Yet under rules issued in June, his own administration estimates that 51% of all employees and 66% of workers in small businesses would have their current plan changed within three years as a result of new mandates.”
Pataki also cites the CMS study used by USA Today’s editors to make his point: Although the president promised costs would decline, they’re in fact projected to go up.
“Higher health care costs. Cuts to seniors' health care. Higher taxes, penalties and fines on employers that keep them from creating the new jobs we need. These are the realities of ObamaCare.”
The lines are as clearly drawn as if it were Redskins-Cowboys, Yankees-Red Sox.
I’m pretty sure I already know the answer to this question, but you all are always surprising me, so I’ll ask anyway: Which side are you on? Is Pataki right to say the only way to get true reform is to repeal and replace? Or, do you favor USA Today’s softer “revisit” message? Take your best shots in the comments.
Already Registered?
If you have already registered to Employee Benefit Views, please use the form below to login. When completed you will immediately be directed to post a comment.
Not Registered?
You must be registered to post a comment. Click here to register.
6 Comment(s)
Posted by: moldremoval | November 4, 2010 5:42 AM
Really good site.thanks for sharing.
Report this Comment
Posted by: Susan E | September 15, 2010 2:38 PM
It would be MUCH easier to "chuck it and start over"..... from everything I have studied on this law - there is more bad than good - so many "unintended" consequences and there are going to need to be additional bills to fix the "unintended consequences"... Seriously the last thing business owners and the American people need is more red tape... which in the end costs us all...
Thats as simply as I can put it... Congress has made an even bigger mess of our already dysfunctional system.
Report this Comment
Posted by: Benefits Bob | September 14, 2010 4:10 PM
From an employer's point of view with a self-insured medical plan currently covering 15,000 members, effective 1/1/2011 we could see up to 900 young adults being added to our rolls. Our costs could increase significantly if any of them experience a major claim. Health care reform has done nothing to reduce employers'cost. It is a sham. - Benefits Bob
Report this Comment
Posted by: Di | September 14, 2010 3:21 PM
Governor Pataki has it right. The foundational premise of PPACA is emminently deceptive in that it is neither 'Patient Protective' nor 'Affordable', and is in fact (like many of our great leaders initiatives) a power grab to transform the US and redistribute it's wealth to "oppressed peoples worldwide" ala Chavez, Castro, etc. Here in the benefits arena you have many witnesses - myself included - who have stopped and reversed the trends of huge increases referred to as "realities" of healthcare. In my former position, our company (14,000 lives)health plans had an increase in 2004 in excess of 17%. By strategically redesigning out CDHP/PPO plans with an emphasis on Wellness, Communication and incentives we brought our Trend to -2% in 2007 and lower in 2008 (the year I left)saving over 20 million dollars in '07 alone. According to Blue Cross Blue Shield of MN we had the lowest Trend in their entire book of business. This is NOT unusual. Ask Helen Darling. We NEED some Senators and Congressmen who will stand up to these Demi-Gods in Washington. Go-o-o Pataki!
Report this Comment
Posted by: buckyks | September 14, 2010 2:45 PM
Then you Sir must be covered by the Federal Healthcare System as is Congress, and couldn't care less.
Report this Comment
Posted by: 175505chairman | September 14, 2010 2:16 PM
I'm intrigued by the implicit acknowledgment in the debate that the legislation in its current form is unworkable.
Report this Comment
Add Your Comments...