Vanderbilt Political Review Fall 2015 | Page 13

DOMESTIC FALL 2015 the Romney-Ryan campaign, “I did not know whether to laugh or cry. It takes some brass to attack a guy for doing something you did”. President Obama did what was right for seniors. Many other theories like ‘death panels’ and ‘insurance death spirals,’ and fear of ‘free riders’ were simply not true. Sarah Palin talked of ‘death panels,’ drawing from draft legislation, words that were never adopted by the Affordable Care Act. It was a case similar to what is currently happening with the Iran nuclear deal: politicians across the aisle criticized the law without even reading it. The main remaining argument is the one that will remain unresolved: will Obamacare reduce health care costs and bring down our budget deficit? One policy maker commented that “costs will go up because Obamacare is front loaded with revenue and back loaded with benefits;” and that the CBO is making an error trying to estimate revenues and costs (the CBP has countered their prior projections on Medicare and Medicaid have been accurate). Most economists believe that broadening the risk pool by 20-25 million more insurers will enable hospitals and insurance companies to keep costs under control and yet provide higher quality care. Critical to cost control will be the freedom with which federal and state exchanges will operate, and their ability to provide the free market competition that is essential for bending down slope of the cost curve. Other innovations like electronic medical records, focus on preventive screening, and limits on corporate profitability would create an impact that may be difficult to predict. However, the most important driver of cost control – tort reform – is completely missing from Obamacare. It is therefore a matter of judgment if cost savings from emergency care and preventive screening would offset the rising costs of defensive medicine. So what has been the policy impact of Obamacare so far? As per con- firmed estimates, there are 27 million fewer uninsured people we have in the country today; uninsured percentage has dropped from 18 to 11 percent (CBO estimates the uninsured to plateau at about seven percent or 23 million people – made up of eight million illegal immigrants, six million who will pay penalties and oters). Eightyseven percent of the new insured population has availed of federal subsidies. Seventy-three percent of insurers are satisfied with the coverage they are getting. In the past five years, the rate of growth of insurance cost has reduced from 12 percent per annum to less than five percent per annum; everyone realizes that cost needs to come down much further. There is progress but more needs to be done, especially in the area of fine tuning market exchanges and passing tort reform. The last question to ponder is that if Obamacare has impacted us positively so far in terms of coverage, quality and cost, why is the majority of American people either against it or indifferent? The answer lies in the numbers and the intent. Before comprehensive health care was passed, 82 percent of Americans already had private health care coverage and were reasonably happy with it. Therefore, it is not practical to expect that a large portion of American public would embrace a government – sponsored change that had some probability of adversely impacting their current private plans. However, the main target of Obamacare is the 47 million uninsured legal Americans. Most developed countries do not have citizens who have no access to health care, as it is considered a basic human right; the lack of proper health care in America has long been considered a travesty of justice. Therefore, if a large percentage of under-privileged Americans are now happy with newly-acquired health care coverage for themselves and their families; therefore, no other macro approval percentages should matter. Justitia servierunt. 13