Where are the jobs, Mr. Boehner?

Just what are the leaders of the GOP doing with their new-found Congressional majority? We all know they took the symbolic vote to repeal the Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act (PPACA or sometimes just ACA) complete with a provision explicitly naming their own bill "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act" without proposing any alternative. We all know the majority of U.S. citizens like the reforms, and the savvy have noticed that the only part being challenged in the courts is, in fact, the mandate inserted to win GOP support in the first place and protect insurance company profits -- and that they managed not just one but two responses to the President's State of the Union.

But what are GOP leaders actually doing?

OK, fair enough, House Speaker John Boehner did take to the airwaves on Sunday, to warn FOX viewers that it, "would be a financial disaster not only for our country, but for the worldwide economy," if the U.S. defaulted on its debt, because, "You can't create jobs if you default on the federal debt." That could happen, according to some estimates, sometime between March and May due to - what? Inaction by Congress. So he's talking to pundits, which isn't exactly doing nothing.

But neither this rhetoric nor talking to pundits is creating one job. Meanwhile, Rick Ungar of Forbes and others argue that the repeal they voted for would actually be a job-killer itself. The ironies seem lost on most who fashion themselves as speaking on behalf of GOP voters.

Here's an excerpt from Ungar's Policy Page at Forbes:

"The primary, most enduring complaint of the opponents of the ACA has been that the law is deathly bad for small business.

Apparently, small businesses, and their employees, do not agree.

The next argument has been that the PPACA is a job killer.

If these small businesses found the new law to be so onerous, why have so many of them voluntarily taken advantage of the benefits provided in the law to give their employees these benefits? They were not mandated to do so. And to the extent that the coming mandate obligations might figure into their thinking, would you not imagine they would wait until 2014 to make a move as the rules do not go into effect until that time?

Of course, there is the nagging banter as to how Obamacare is leading us down the road to socialism.

Let it go, folks."

Rick Ungar,

More Small Businesses Offering Health Care
To Employees Thanks To Obamacare

January 6, 2011

So the pundits are permitting the politicians - particularly those leading the GOP - to play familiar partisan games, posturing for the cameras while criticizing every nuance of the President's stance and efforts, but what's the impact? Wasted time.

What does the country need? What do we want our elected leaders to actually do? Act responsibly, behave like adults, get to work and fix the problems for Main Street like they did for the fat cats on Wall Street who contribute to their campaign coffers - we need jobs.

There are millions of us, millions of hard-working citizens - and voters - out of work watching jobs move overseas and foreclosures ruin our neighborhoods, yet the politicians prefer to pretend that what matters most are symbolic votes, the profit margins and bonuses on Wall Street, and criticizing without proposing solutions, or even alternative initiatives? What's next, Mr. Boehner, holding your breath until your face turns blue?

It's enough to make a grown man cry.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, former Democratic Campaign Manager, strategist, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community. You can follow him as @kabiu on twitter.

Is Bachmann covertly part of anti-Stupak Pushback?

Bart Stupak's (D-MI) amendment to the Affordable Health Care for America [AHCA] Act introduces restrictions on access to abortion more severe than were passed previously, including during the Bush presidency. With broad agreement from voices as diverse as Michelle Bachmann, Joseph Stiglitz, and President Obama that something needs to be done to rein in health care overhead so that our money is spent effectively and more regular families don't face bankruptcy due to medical costs, (what Bachmann calls providing a "safety net" for the uninsured,) there may be a severe backlash to this amendment that made a late entry into the process.

We know Congress has realized there's enormous pressure to make real changes, as the chart shows (click to enlarge.) Clearly the White House has been doing extensive work behind the scenes despite both branches of Congress drafting their own bills.

"There's going to be a firestorm here. Women are going to realize that a Democratic-controlled House has passed legislation that would prohibit women paying for abortions with their own funds."

U.S. Representative Diana DeGette (D-CO)

Representative DeGette has helped author an open letter signed by 40 Democratic congresswomen demanding that these restrictions be taken out of the final bill. The AHCA Act contains numerous excellent provisions, helping protect Medicare subscribers and addressing the need for more primary care providers, for instance, but the last minute inclusion of gubernatorial hopeful Stupak's language has stirred outrage among those who think there's too much government interference already.  What's next - restricting funds for elective procedures such as cosmetic surgery following injuries?

For her part MN Rep. Michelle Bachmann, who stated in her town hall meeting in August in Lake Elmo, MN, that while there would have to be a “safety net” for those without insurance she would oppose anything that smacked of government interfering in and controlling medical decisions, voted against the bill - possibly because that's precisely what the Stupak amendment does. Surely the 2010 elections are too distant for Bachmann to be moderating her anti-Obama stance over worries about losing her seat to Maureen Reed or current MN State Senator Tarryl Clark before she gets vested in the House retirement plan (although both are considerably more middle-of-the-road, and Clark has recently pulled a near-miraculous bi-partisan victory on behalf of the residents of the most populous city in Bachmann's 6th District.)

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, journalist, and political analyst who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

The on-going confusion over "single-payer" health care

Single-payer isn't a synonym for "universal health insurance coverage." The two are separate issues - although many who support one support the other, as well.

Single-payer is only about who administers the payment. It could be the government, it might not be. In either case single-payer doesn't solve the question of "universal" coverage. The President has expressed his belief that while single-payer is an ideal, it is not a practical short-term goal due to the well-established (some would say entrenched) model already in force.

Universal health insurance coverage is one way to insure coverage for those who can't/don't get it through their employer - the unemployed, the self-employed, those who have been denied coverage for any number of reasons, etc.

A "public option" isn't either of those; a public option would mean setting up the government as one possible insurance plan provider among many, each responsible for their own paperwork. It is touted as a possible path to a single-payer system, but given the pragmatic attitude of the President dealing with wealthy companies buying influence in the Congress, it's not even that - and single payer is not going to happen anytime soon despite its obvious cost savings.

By the way: none of these is socialized medicine, either.

As long as what's being discussed is an option, as long as private plans remain available, the public option concept is simply about trying to get everybody covered. Are you with me? "Public option" isn't a synonym for either single-payer or universal health insurance.

Why, you may well ask, do the special interests oppose such changes, particularly that public option, and muddy the waters in the media while lobbying in Congress? Because insurance industry surveys show that a public option wouldn't attract merely the 50 million uninsured Americans, but actually more than double that number. Insurance companies don't want to compete with a plan system that operates efficiently on such low overhead - it threatens their profits, and the salaries and bonuses of the CEOs who, in some cases, earn tens of millions of dollars per year under the current system.

“…what we’ve seen is that the private healthcare insurers do not know how to deliver an efficient way.”

World Bank Chief Economist, Joseph Stiglitz