Law’s cost too high for country

By John Archer

----

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was recently ruled constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In the end, the individual mandate was upheld, not through the Commerce Clause, but through the power to tax.

Americans should be pleased that the decision does not continue the long-standing court trend of expanding the scope of the Commerce Clause. That process had already proceeded too far and threatened to become the only tool driving Congress. The bad news is that it opens a new door that may be used by Congress to further erode the concept of limited government and enumerated powers.

The ruling means the ACA now moves toward full enactment and the most relevant question is: Can we really afford the Affordable Care Act?

The ACA promised improved access, lower premiums, improved health care costs, and no new taxation.

It may have improved access. Approximately half of the 60 million uninsured will now have access to health care coverage. That is a step in the right direction, but at what cost?

The ACA does nothing to rein in the accelerating cost of health care. It does nothing to deal with the state-by-state inequities within the original Medicare legislation in 1983. And, it does much to divide providers from the rest of the health care system. What good is adding 30 million people to this insurance without access to quality providers?

Then, because the penalty for a business not to offer health care is significantly less than the cost of health care, there could be substantially more people cut from private plans and added to the government's burden to provide. And the aging of baby boomers is adding another 10,000 daily to the Medicare rolls.

This law has put a huge burden on the government at a time when the economy is struggling.

Finally, how successful will the government, including the IRS, be in enforcing the mandate?

So given this backdrop, how do we pay for this?

Each successive cost estimate since passage has gone up. A USA Today article recently suggested $1.5 trillion over 10 years. The cost experience of Massachusetts' similar experiment resulted in a tripling of original cost estimates. So if we are really looking at something closer to a $3 trillion bill over the next decade, and the ACA has no real cost reduction efforts, where will the money come from?

There are only three ways to close the gap between cost and revenue. First, Congress can again exercise its power to tax more. Second, there can be a cut in benefits to patients, contrary to what was promised when this passed. Third, there can be a cut in compensation to the providers. This will likely lead to an exodus of providers to states not adopting this legislation, further widening the gap in quality of health care. None of these options are good for Americans.

The biggest flaw of Obama's ACA may be the president's belief that Americans simply wanted health insurance. The reality is that Americans wanted low-cost, high quality health care. But when the ACA increases cost and reduces the opportunity to find skilled providers, Obama's brand of health reform must be replaced with a better form.

Perhaps the most important part of Chief Justice Robert's opinion had nothing to do with the constitutional issue of the individual mandate. When he wrote, “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices,” he was reminding us that in a democracy, there is accountability.

In November, we, the people, will once again be responsible for who we send to Congress to deal with these complex, difficult decisions. I believe that 2nd District Congressmen Dave Loebsack, who voted for this bill, did us a great disservice.

John Archer of Bettendorf, senior counsel at Deere & Company, is the Republican nominee for Iowa's 2nd District congressional seat. Comments: info@archerforcongress.com