Yesterday, The New York Times reported, “The new health care law is known as the Affordable Care Act. But Democrats in Congress and advocates for low-income people say coverage may be unaffordable for millions of Americans because of a cramped reading of the law by the administration and by the Internal Revenue Service in particular. Under rules proposed by the service, some working-class families would be unable to afford family coverage offered by their employers, and yet they would not qualify for subsidies provided by the law. The fight revolves around how to define ‘affordable’ under provisions of the law that are ambiguous. The definition could have huge practical consequences, affecting who gets help from the government in buying health insurance. . . . The debate over the meaning of affordable pits the Obama administration against its usual allies. Many people who support the new law said the proposed rules could leave millions of people in the lower middle class uninsured and frustrate the intent of Congress, which was to expand coverage. ‘The effect of this wrong interpretation of the law will be that many families remain or potentially become uninsured,’ said a letter to the administration from Democrats who pushed the bill through the House in 2009-10. The lawmakers include Representatives Henry A. Waxman of California and Sander M. Levin of Michigan. Bruce Lesley, the president of First Focus, a child advocacy group, said: ‘This is a serious glitch. Under the proposal, millions of children and families would be unable to obtain affordable coverage in the workplace, but ineligible for subsidies to buy private insurance in the exchanges’ to be established in each state.”

So once again, the Democrats are finding that their hastily written 2,700 page health care law has serious flaws and are seeing that a law sold as making health care more affordable, will do no such thing.

The Times notes, “The administration is trying to strike a balance. If the rules allow more people to qualify for subsidies, it would increase costs to the federal government. If the rules require employers to provide affordable coverage to dependents as well as workers, it would increase costs for many employers.” Of course, that’s one of the dilemmas introduced when the government inserts itself into the health care market, as President Obama and Democrats designed their law to do.

This is just one more reason this flawed, unaffordable, unpopular law needs to be repealed an replaced with step-by-step reforms that put patients, not government, in charge, and actually lowers costs.

Related:

Rasmussen Reports: 56% Favor Repeal of Health Care Law

Tweet of the Day: McCaskill Having Shoulder Surgery Due to Carrying Heavy Load for Obama?

Comments

comments