The American Dream’s Unlikely Champion: The Congressional Budget Office

The American Dream’s Unlikely Champion: The Congressional Budget Office

– Christopher Carroll

The Obama administration isn’t doing Tuesday’s Congressional Budget Office report justice. It’s time to champion it as a victory for the Affordable Care Act and for the American standard of living.

Contrary to Republican claims that the C.B.O anticipates the A.C.A to “kill” two million American jobs, the report details their expectation that there will be two million fewer Americans working. The distinction between the two is important.  While the Republican claim implies that the A.C.A will take jobs away, the non-partisan C.B.O anticipates that there will be 2 million fewer Americans choosing to participate in the workforce. In other words, the C.B.O estimate is an analysis of labor supply, not job demand.

The difference is elemental and makes the C.B.O report one of good news rather than ill. The report is projecting a trend that points to an increase in the standard of living, welcome news for generations of Americans who will likely see a decline from the living standards of their parents and grandparents. The Affordable Care Act, in the opinion of the Congressional Budget Office, will both insure more people and allow them to choose not to work in jobs that they don’t want simply to keep their healthcare coverage.

Improvement of the standard of living is part of what is frequently referred to as “the American Dream.” Americans and immigrants live in this country not only with the hope of creating the lives they want for themselves, but also of providing the opportunity for their children to have a better life than their parents. Today, with the failure of pension systems, a lackluster economy that in the long-run may never grow at more than 2.2%, high underemployment, and exorbitant education costs, the least society can do is help provide affordable, if not free, healthcare.

****

Any indication that the Affordable Care Act is achieving higher standards of living should be championed, not feared, excused or ignored. Championing its successes will be difficult but must be done before the mid-term elections.

The Obama administration must give incumbent democrats on the Hill ammunition to fight the A.C.A related onslaught they will undoubtedly face during a tough election cycle.  As Chris Cillizza wrote in a piece for the Washington Post, the positive substance of the C.B.O report is easily drowned out in Republican attacks. It will be incumbent on the President to lead the counter charge (and allow the country to address the real problems in the C.B.O report, like the anticipated anemic long-term growth of the American economy).

Following the botched roll-out of the A.C.A, the dysfunctional performance of some state health care exchanges and the fact that some Americans will pay more for insurance, ignoring the fact that American lives will improve as a result is nothing short of political negligence. Failure to draw attention to this side of the C.B.O report could cripple the futures of democrats on the Hill and with them the future of healthcare reform and the rest of President Obama’s agenda. If defense of the American Dream can’t bring the administration to fight, maybe nothing can.

The Affordable Care Act – Failing New Hampshire

The Affordable Care Act – Failure New Hampshire

-Christopher Carroll

 

The Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, has had a rocky introduction. The systems are malfunctioning and the legislation has thus far been proved faulty. Though, as with any new legislation the size of the A.C.A, a bumpy start was anticipated, nobody predicted the scope or the damage that the early failures have thus far done. That certainly is true in the state of New Hampshire, where the Affordable Care Act is proving to be nearly as disappointing as the demise of the Old Man of the Mountain.

As has been widely discussed across the country and in recent posts, the Affordable Care Act is a mess. Citizens, already skeptical about the law in the first place, either cannot successfully enroll on the exchanges or are being kicked off the plans they already have. The woes don’t stop there. Added to these immense flaws is the emerging reality that the state of New Hampshire will have one insurance carrier in 2014.

In May, Sarah Kliff of the Washington Post reported that it was a distinct possibility that New Hampshire’s competitive exchanges would be less than suspenseful. Since then nothing has changed. Today, there is one insurance carrier offered on the exchanges, Anthem BlueCross BlueShield.

The A.C.A needs more providers in the exchanges to behave properly. While the law ensures that the quality of the plans is comparable across the country, the pricing of those plans is reliant on competition between providers. Additionally, with Anthem BlueCross BlueShield serving as the states only provider, the only hospitals and doctors that will be covered will be those who are in A.B.C.B.S’ network. This is a disaster for patients, doctors and hospitals.

The A.C.A was meant to not only ensure that more Americans receive health insurance but drive down prices due to a larger market and increased insurer competition. In New Hampshire, that not only doesn’t seem likely to happen, but the quality of care may be hurt as well.  Local hospitals outside the provider’s network may be forced to close their doors. Local doctors not affiliated with the right hospitals will lose work. Patients in need of ambulatory travel will be forced to wait longer periods for emergency units traveling from further away. And on top of all of this, insurance customers will be forced to pay more for health care because there is one insurance provider who can force hospitals to charge whatever they want.

Obamacare does many great things for most Americans. It has enabled young people to remain on their parents health plans. It will ensure that Americans already sick aren’t denied insurance due to pre-existing health conditions. In a majority of cases, it will help reduce the cost of health services across the country. New Hampshire, however, it is a different story. In New Hampshire, Obamacare is failing.

The Obama Administration’s Unforced Errors

The Obama Administration’s Unforced Errors – They have been avoidable. Will they define President Obama’s presidency?

-Christopher Carroll

 

Unforced errors are the bane of a tennis player’s existence – they seem to be the bane of President Obama’s existence too.

The catastrophic opening of the Affordable Care Act health exchanges and the emergent reality that many Americans will be kicked off their current healthcare plans, despite Presidential assurances to the contrary, have given democrats and the White House headaches. These unforced errors probably could have been avoided. Instead, they could cost the President the ability to realize the remainder of his second term agenda and may cost democrats on Capitol Hill their jobs.

Rather than celebrate a debt limit victory over Republicans, President Obama and the rest of the party are ducking for cover, as Republicans and the public fume over what is seen as government ineptitude with HealthCare.gov and Americans losing their coverage. While democrats in Congress were willing to swallow a difficult pill when passing the A.C.A in 2010, they may be less willing to stand by the law now. Already, democrats are introducing new legislation to amend or delay Obamacare. Soon, the Obama administration will not only have given back all the ground gained after the government shutdown, they will be trying to lead a party unwilling to follow them.

If the problems aren’t fixed soon, congressional democrats will likely distance themselves from the President in attempts to protect themselves in the 2014 and 2016 election cycles, a possibility that White House officials fear could derail President’s remaining agenda.

****

President Obama and his staff clearly recognize how precarious their situation is. Tuesday, the President apologized to those people who are losing their coverage, a rare moment in American presidential history. While that clearly is just the beginning of the administration’s response, the most prudent way forward is not widely agreed upon.

Some democrats are angry, fearing that the White House response has been too subdued, not reflecting the dire situation that the failures have placed them in. Others, fear that by directing all their attention to the A.C.A, the White House will lose sight of its other priorities, including immigration and gun reform.

****

Regardless of how much energy and priority is devoted to the A.C.A disaster, the past weeks will remain Republican ammunition to be used against vulnerable democrats in Congressional races. While the issues must be fixed as soon as possible, the other agenda priorities must not be forgotten or else risk letting the faulty roll-out rule the public discussion long into the foreseeable future. The faster the administration can put this time behind it the better for President Obama, his priorities and for democrats running for re-election in 2014.

The administration must find a quick administrative fix, similar to that reported by the Huffington Post on Friday, to address those people who are losing their current coverage. The President cannot afford to look like a liar or misinformed. The administration must then begin pushing their agenda. President Obama must focus on immigration reform, gun reform, women’s rights, voter enfranchisement and job creation. He must help provide congressional democrats with ammunition of their own, lightening the weight that the A.C.A will undoubtedly prove to be during the election cycle.

Unforced errors happen to everyone. While they define average athletes, people and politicians, great athletes and leaders are made in response to them. Which will President Obama be?

ESSAY: The Congressional ACA Deal: Not An Exemption, Just More of the Same

Essay: The Congressional ACA Deal: Not An Exemption, Just More of the Same

-Christopher Carroll

Congress isn’t giving itself an ObamaCare exemption, but the deal recently reached with the White House isn’t doing the Affordable Care Act any favors.

Congress and their staffers, after a small measure of hysteria, do not need to worry that they will lose the health insurance coverage provided them by the federal government: the Obama administration has seen to that. With the deal came a collective sigh of relief from congressional offices across the country. It also came with a sense of resentment from many voters.

The issue arose when it was realized that Democrats had agreed to a provision written into the Affordable Care Act by Senator Charles Grassley (R.-Iowa) requiring Congress and their staffers to be covered by health insurance offered through the ACA exchanges. What at the time was perceived to be rather minor legislation has now seemingly overly burdensome for the Congressmen who wrote the law.

 

The difference between the old and new systems is by no means inconsequential. Right now, prior to implementation of the ACA on January 1st, members of Congress and their aides are covered through the Federal Employee Benefits Program, a program that covers 75% of premiums. Grassley’s statute, however, means that about 11,000 Congressmen, aides and staff would lose that coverage. Additionally, Congressmen and some staffers wouldn’t be able to qualify for other benefits provided by the ACA. “The Members – annual salary: $174,000 – and their better-paid aides also wouldn’t qualify for ObamaCare subsidies,” explains the Wall Street Journal. “That means they could be exposed to thousands of dollars a year in out of pocket expenses.”

The deal has expectedly been met with scathing remarks and scorn. Republicans on the Hill, including Sen. David Vitter (R.-La.), have not wasted time to make political hay, calling Obamacare “a train-wreck, even for Congress.” Many voters are angry as well, interpreting the deal as more back room dealings by untrustworthy Congressmen placing the burdens of unwanted laws on the people while exempting themselves.

Others, meanwhile, do not see the deal as an exception for Congress at all. Nancy Pelosi (D.-Ca.) believes that the deal resolves legislation that was meant simply to embarrass Democrats, “and the collateral damage was to staff.” Ezra Klein, the popular writer at Wonkblog, has pointed out that the deal is not an exemption at all and calling it one is misguided. Instead, the deal is meant to fix a problem created by the Grassley amendment.

Français : (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The issue at hand isn’t about the cost the deal may or may not force on individuals. Instead, it is an issue of law, logistics and timing. As explained by Mr. Klein, “Grassley’s amendment means that the largest employer in the country is required to put some of its employees — the ones working for Congress — on the exchanges. But the exchanges don’t have any procedures for handling premium contributions for large employers” until 2017. In other words, because large employers aren’t allowed on the health exchanges, Congressional staffers and aides will not be afforded the same opportunities that most Americans will be offered under the Affordable Care Act. They will, in effect, be penalized for working for the government.

****

Americans angry at Congress are misdirecting their frustration; the public’s enmity should instead be directed towards Obama administration and the administration that should be embarrassed.

The President’s crowning achievement, the Affordable Care Act, was conceived with exemplary intentions. Free healthcare for all has long been an idea dearly held by many liberal lions throughout the decades and this bill was meant to get America closer to that ideal. However, the bill is crumbling around itself.

Earlier this year, the administration postponed the employer mandate of the ACA, weakening the law so as to buy time for businesses to implement the new requirements. Now, Americans hear of more band-aid fixes and backroom deals, necessary to rectify further failures to anticipate the needs of government workers.

The deal itself, is good. It is not an attempt by Congressmen to get out of a poorly constructed bill. It is simply an attempt to treat congressional aides fairly, giving them the opportunity to receive employer benefit options, similar to ones that are going to be offered to people not affiliated with Congress. However, Congressmen and aides should bare in mind that this fight has come at a political cost for Obama and the ACA in general. On the surface, the deal appears to be an attempt by Congress to avert being subjected to laws already imposed upon the people. The political ramifications of those feelings are dangerous during good economic times, even more so when felt during times of economic instability and high unemployment.  Congressmen would be smart to take time to explain this to their constituencies. The ACA is already an immensely complicated bill. Most people are misinformed about what it does and how it could help them and this deal is more bad press for a bill that has received precious little.

 

It is a shame that a bill that was viewed as progress towards universal healthcare, a passion for generations of Democrats from FDR to Teddy Kennedy, has have been so badly botched. Could ObamaCare do more harm than good on the road towards universal healthcare in America? With each passing failure, the answer becomes a more emphatic, yes.