New Obamacare attacks debunked. This is getting tiresome, GOP.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

BlameObamacarew396h223

Once again, attacks on Obamacare-slash-The Affordable Care Act have been debunked. How many times must we go through this? We already know the answer to that: Until President Obama is out of office, and/or until the success of the ACA is well-publicized, and/or until the public finally tells the GOP to STFU. Or all of the above.

Meantime, Jonathan Gruber-- a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the Scholars Strategy Network-- is debunking their most recent and pathetic little efforts in a Los Angeles Times op-ed.

He starts out by reminding us (read: informing Republicans) that there was a whole lot of good news in the report by the Congressional Budget Office: Premiums have dropped, the law will cost $9 billion less than they originally thought, and "the provision designed to buffer insurance companies from risk will actually raise revenue, not function as any sort of federal government bailout."

Got that, GOP? Read their lips: No bailout.

And about all those zillions of jobs that Obamacare will force people to leave. Wrong. Wrongier than wrong. Wrong ultra. Note to Republicans: There are times when Americans actually want or need to leave their jobs... voluntarily. And ironically, it's all about those "family values" that Republicans love to rub in America's face, the very same ones they often fail to adhere to:

[T]he CBO did not project lost jobs at all. Job leaving is not the same as job losing. Many Americans who may eventually leave jobs or reduce their work hours will do so by choice to make themselves and their families better off. Voluntary reductions are not a cost of the healthcare reform law, they are a benefit. [...]

The CBO projects that healthcare reform will reduce the federal budget deficit by $100 billion over the first decade and by more than $1 trillion over the second decade. Healthcare costs are also rising more slowly, in part because of provisions in the law. The economic gains from reducing the deficit and slowing healthcare spending likely outweigh any losses from slightly reduced labor compensation.

So much for those talking points.

With ways to ensure affordable health coverage no matter where they work, many Americans will be able to start small businesses or take new positions where they can be more productive.

Wait what? So this is not only better for small business start-ups (small businesses: another GOP talking point), but also for families (there go those pesky values intruding on them again) and *gasp!* the economy. Sucks to be so embarrassingly wrong, doesn't it anti-Obamacare blowhards?

If naysaying politicians really believe it is worth throwing 25 million Americans off the rolls of the insured to avoid a fraction of a percent of reduced labor market compensation, then they should stand up and say so. Otherwise, they are simply scare-mongering without presenting a constructive solution to our national health insurance crisis.

In other words, business as usual.
FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare
  • DownriverDem

    Repubs also want to blame PBO and the Dems when their obstruction does just that. They push this theme so that the uninformed vote reubs back in.

  • http://www.tumblr.com/blog/akinsc Carla Akins

    Reality seems to be of little interest to the naysayers. A large portion of middle of the road Independents (yes, there are many out there) are cautiously delighted, dems are secretly relieved and the remaining have their fingers stuck in their ears.

    They have no interest in whether it's working, the country wants it or if it's best for the country. Their only interest is obstruction and deflection in an effort to make the President look bad.