Fighting a
law that is unfair, unworkable and unaffordable is reasonable and necessary.
The Wall
Street Journal
By JIM
DEMINT
Oct. 17,
2013 6:27 p.m. ET
Now that
the government shutdown has ended and the president has preserved ObamaCare for
the time being, it's worth explaining why my organization, the Heritage
Foundation, and other conservatives chose this moment to fight—and why we will
continue to fight. The reason is simple: to protect the American people from
the harmful effects of this law.
I spent a
good part of my summer traveling around the country with the Heritage
Foundation's sister organization, Heritage Action, and I heard firsthand from
many Americans being harmed by ObamaCare. More and more people have had their
work hours cut, their jobs eliminated and their coverage taken away as a result
of this new law.
Supporters
of ObamaCare usually defend the law by insisting that they want to help people.
I won't question their motives. I do wonder, however, if they understand what
they're doing to the country.
We know
that premiums are going up due to ObamaCare—Americans are getting notices in
their mailboxes every day. On Wednesday, Drew Gonshorowski of the Center for
Data Analysis at the Heritage Foundation published research that shows exchange
premiums are going up in all but five states. In North Carolina , for example, many consumers
will find their premiums almost double when shopping on the government
exchanges. The hardest-hit states, such as Georgia ,
Arizona , Vermont
and North Dakota ,
will see premium increases of up to 150%.
Mr.
Gonshorowski's research shows that the hardest hit by the increases will be
young adults. "A state that exhibits this clearly is Vermont ," he writes, "where the
increase for 27-year-olds is 144 percent and the increase for 50-year-olds is
still 60 percent, but far less. All states exhibit this relationship."
Sen. Ted
Cruz Getty Images
We also
know that, once established, the cost of ObamaCare's new entitlements will not
fall. Historical evidence suggests the opposite. Nearly 50 years ago, at the
time of Medicare's enactment, it was projected that the federal government
would spend $9 billion on Part A hospital services in 1990. Actual spending in
that year totaled $67 billion—an increase of 644% compared with initial
estimates.
Likewise,
government officials originally projected that Medicare Part B physician
services would require "federal appropriations of about $500 million a
year from general tax revenues." Last year, the federal outlay for that
program was $163.8 billion—overshooting the original estimate by more than
4,400%.
Given this
track record, the Congressional Budget Office's projection that ObamaCare will
cost "only" $250 billion (you read that right: a quarter-trillion
dollars) a decade from now seems far-fetched.
There's a
reason Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid recently claimed that ObamaCare will
lead to a single-payer health-care system: It happens to be true. Once
employers drop health coverage for their low and middle-wage workers, the
majority of Americans will be dumped into tightly regulated health exchanges
and granted a "choice" of plans that will be more alike than
different. The quality of care will suffer, access to doctors and plans you
once had and liked will be reduced, and America will deteriorate into a
two-tier health system—one in which the well-off can still buy quality
coverage, but most Americans are consigned to poor care through the exchanges
and Medicaid.
Yes, I can
hear many conservative friends saying to me right around this point: "Jim,
we agree with you that ObamaCare is going to wreck the country, but elections
have consequences." I have three responses.
The first
is that ObamaCare was not the central fight in 2012, much to the disappointment
of conservatives. Republicans hoped that negative economic news would sweep
them to victory, and exit polls confirmed that the economy, not health care,
was the top issue. The best thing is to declare last year's election a mistrial
on ObamaCare.
Second, the
lives of most Americans are not dominated by the electoral cycle. They
shouldn't have to wait three more years for Congress to give them relief from
this law, especially when the president has so frequently given waivers to his
friends. Full legislative repeal may not be possible while President Obama
remains in office, but delaying implementation by withholding funds from a law
that is proven to be unfair, unworkable and unaffordable is a reasonable and
necessary fight.
There's a
third reason not to stop fighting. Forget the consultants, the pundits and the
pollsters; good policy is good politics. If the Republicans had not fought on
ObamaCare, the compromise would have been over the budget sequester. Instead,
they have retained the sequester and for the past three months ObamaCare and
its failings have been front and center in the national debate. Its disastrous
launch was spotlighted by our defund struggle, not overshadowed, as some
contend. With a revived and engaged electorate, ObamaCare will now be the issue
for the next few years.
These are
the reasons we fought so hard to get Washington to listen to the American
people and take action to stop ObamaCare, and it is why so many are thankful
for the courageous leadership of people like Sens. Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, and
conservatives in the House of Representatives. The law is economically
unstable, financially irresponsible and harmful to hardworking Americans.
Mr. DeMint,
a former senator from South Carolina ,
is president of the Heritage Foundation.
No comments:
Post a Comment