Left: Fix the health care system and move on

The issue I have with repeal of the health care law goes beyond my belief that health care is a right and not a privilege; the issue that troubles me is can we afford to make this the top priority of our new Congress? Yes, there are ways that the bill can be trimmed down, and the president addressed some of these in his State of the Union address to the nation. He said he is willing to look at items such as medical malpractice law that can be reformed to reduce costs. So once again, if we can amend the problems, why would repeal be a better option?

If we repealed the law, we would not have protection of young adults until 26 on their parents’ insurance. If we repealed the law, thousands would still be pushed away from insurance for preexisting conditions. If we repealed the law, the consumer protections that prevent companies from dropping a patient while he or she is going into surgery would disappear.

If we repealed the law, every good thing that comes along with this law will disappear as well. I want to know that my dad with a heart condition or my sister who has a learning disability will no longer be barred from more affordable insurance companies because both have “preexisting conditions.”

Nonpartisan economists have said that repealing the law would add a quarter-of-a-trillion dollars to the deficit. So why repeal, when you can fix? I don’t favor the health care mandate because I am a leftist who wants to shove government down your throat. I favor the mandate because I want to know that if you get sick and go to the emergency room that your bill will at least be somewhat covered by your insurance, instead of by the hospital and the other patients. It is the same principle behind mandated car insurance.

I have always been taught that if something is fixable, then fix it. I want my government to fix the problems with the law, and then move on, create jobs, and reduce the deficit.

The Republicans did not sweep seats in the House because they ran on repealing healthcare; they won the seats back because they promised job creation. Congress, please stop wasting your time and my tax dollars, and act on your campaign promises of jobs and a lower deficit. Fix health care and move on.

Ryan Rolfs is an SDSU student majoring in political science and is secretary of the SDSU College Democrats. Reach him at [email protected]

Right: New law hinders job growth, increases unemployment

The U.S. Congress should repeal the new health care law because it is unconstitutional, much too expensive, hinders job growth, and does nothing to fix the real problem– the unsustainable price of health care. Another problem with the new health care law is that it fails to fulfill the claims made by the Obama administration: that the new law will hold down costs and at the same time allow Americans who are happy with their current coverage to keep it.

What makes the new health care law unconstitutional is the individual mandate that requires every American to purchase health insurance or else face a penalty. The government does not have the power to make any citizen purchase anything. Chief Medicare actuary Richard Foster recently told Congress that the new health care law is unlikely to hold costs down or allow everyone to keep their current coverage plans. He says that health care costs will increase because people who are newly insured will have access to services they would have gone without. Foster’s office projects that if Medicare cuts to hospitals and health agencies turn out to be unsustainable it will force many providers into the red. Foster’s office is also saying that at least 7 million Medicare recipients in private plans will lose them and will have to find coverage elsewhere.

Another failure of the bill is that it will do further harm to a job market that is already struggling. Diana Furchtgutt-Ross, a former Chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor wrote in a column in the Washington Examiner said that the law will hurt job growth because every employer that has over 50 employees must offer full health coverage. What this means is that any firm that has less than 50 employees will have no incentive to hire more than 50, and a firm with little over 50 employees will have an economic incentives to lay them off or fire them which would increase unemployment.

The other option is for these firms to opt out and pay $2,000 for every employee after the first 30 workers. For example, the cost for a small firm to go from 50 employees to 52 would cost $44,000. Repealing this new law would prevent more unemployment, decrease costs, and prevent the loss of some Americans’ current health coverage.

Keenan Watson is an SDSU student majoring in English and is chair of the SDSU College Republicans. Reach him at [email protected]