The GOP should apologize for its sins of commission and omission in its war against Obamacare

Even after the web site was fixed and Pres. Obama apologized for misspeaking, , the GOP’s war against Obamacare (ACA)  rages on blithely spreading misinformation.  While the GOP gleefully called the President a liar for promising those individually insured  could keep their insurance if they liked it, the current Republican  campaign against Obamacare  is full of sins of omission  and commission. It is the GOP’s turn to apologize.

 Mitch McConnell, GOP Senate Minority Leader, flat fibbed  when he  misrepresented  a report from the Congressional Budget Office(CBO). He wrongfully claimed  it  meant that 2.5 million jobs would be lost thanks to Obamacare.  Jobs would  not disappear, but the CBO estimated that  2.5 million who had jobs    would leave  of their own choice, but not by  employers killing job positions. GOP ads are already promoting  their twisted version of the   CBO report.

 Prior to Obamacare  some were locked into their jobs because they needed employer provided insurance  since  that was the only way to get pre-existing conditions covered or to be able to afford coverage for their families. Obamacare frees them to retire early, start their own business, go part time,  or stay home to care for their parents  or young children.

 The GOP  countered  that such  choice is bad because  it would encourage people to stop working, reduce the workforce, and  thus harm the economy. The CBO report indeed predicted   there would  be workforce reduction by 2024 by 2.5 million.  That  is about 1.5% of the total workforce, not exactly earthshaking and not because Obamacare killed jobs.

A recent anti ACA ad omits so much information, it  borders on  deceptive advertising. Five million individually insured got letters from insurers discontinuing their substandard policies. To continue beating war drums  that the President lied about their  keeping insurance, an outside conservative group is running a commercial in our market that  features a lupus sufferer who complains her  $50 per month insurance now is $325, her  deductibles are too  high,   she has to take on a second job, and she has to change doctors.  She  should be asked some hard questions.  Did she apply for a  subsidized health policy in the ACA exchanges ? Was her annual income too high to qualify for a subsidy? .What was her prior deductible with such low ball coverage of her old policy? The health care exchanges include a wide variety of insurance providers. Was her current physician participating in any of them? An estimated 60% of those receiving  the letters can qualify for premium  subsidies in the exchanges,  or hardship exemptions,  with access to better catastrophic insurance.    

Some  GOP senators are  pitching   a replacement   to Obamacare  that buries a critical downside in small print. Their proposal would relieve  employers, health care and device providers, individuals, and insurers  from mandates and  being taxed or getting fines  for not providing or getting insurance.  Good for them but bad for most everyone else.  It  would replace the  funding to  subsidize premiums  with raising taxes on  the 60 % of Americans who get insurance through employers. The plan would  declare most  health insurance benefits taxable income,  Forbes  estimated that would be a tax increase of $1345 a year  for a family of four in the 25% bracket. http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2014/01/28.   Families making between 300%-400% above  the poverty line would lose Obamacare insurance subsidies.
Version of above at www.skyhidailynews.com  Feb. 15, 2014

What the CBO reported: “The estimated reduction stems almost entirely from a net decline in the amount of labor that workers choose to supply, rather than from a net drop in business’ demand for labor, so it will appear almost entirely as a reduction in labor force participation and in hours worked relative to what have occurred otherwise rather than as an increase in unemployment (that is, more workers seeking, but not finding jobs) or underemployment (such as part-time workers who would prefer to work more hours per week).”