Obamacare

House Republicans Just Voted to Change Obamacare For the Worse

|

House.gov

Yesterday afternoon, the newly Republican controlled House took its first shot against Obamacare.

In a 252 to 172 vote, the House voted down the health law's 30-hour workweek, which as part of the employer mandate requires businesses with 50 or more workers to provide coverage to employees who work at least that many hours in a week. In its place, the House adopted a 40-hour week.

For many Republicans in Congress, the vote was seen a way of easing the pain the 30-hour rule has caused on workers and employers. Many employers were adamantly against the provision, saying the requirement adds a significant benefit expense; workers say their hours have been cut or capped in order to keep them under the 30-hour threshold.

The requirement is widely disliked. Most legislators on the Hill, from both parties, have heard from constituents about problems related to the rule. There was hope that, as a result, the bill might garner significant Democratic support. In the end, it picked up just 12 Democratic votes.

Beyond mitigating the damage done by the provision, Republicans understand the change as illustrative of their new approach to Obamacare. It's intended as a way to show that the GOP can fix the health care law, making small changes to improve the way it works in addition to the radical opposition the party has demonstrated for the last several years.

The problem is that, far from being a practical improvement, the change the Republicans have chosen makes the health law worse.

For one thing, it would make it more expensive. By rewriting the rules so that businesses no longer have to cover individuals working between 30 and 40 hours a week, the change would shift roughly a million people off of employer coverage. About half would then end up enrolled in coverage either through Medicaid or Obamacare's subsidized exchanges. The public, in other words, would be picking up the tab. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the change would increase the deficit by about $53 billion by 2025.

In addition, it would probably not end the cutting or limiting of work hours in response to the law. Instead, it would shift the point at which the cutting and capping is done.  Rather than capping employees who might otherwise have worked, say, 30 or 32 hours, employers under this provision would have an incentive to cap hours for employees who work roughly 40 hours each week. That's an awful lot of workers. As Yuval Levin noted at National Review Online last November, one study found that, amongst the large employers affected by the requirement, about 29 million work between 40 and 44 hours a week. Just seven million work between 30 and 39 hours.

The change, in other words, would make the law even more expensive and create even greater incentives for disruption of the workweek.

Or it would, at least, if it were to go into effect. It hasn't passed in the Senate yet, but it won't really matter whether it does. President Obama issued a veto threat yesterday, saying that he would refuse to sign onto the change.

This is the reality of the situation now for Republicans hoping to alter or tear down Obamacare. Yes, they control both chambers of Congress, but President Obama still wields the veto, and Democrats will continue to back him. Any real change that Republicans hope to make to the health law will have to receive Obama's blessing. He's likely to agree to very little.

In addition, the law is set for another major challenge at the Supreme Court this year, with a ruling likely before the end of June. Republicans, then, are better off waiting until after the Supreme Court hands down its decision, at which point the ground may have substantially changed.

In the meantime, those in Congress who wish to oppose the law would be best served by continuing to highlight its weaknesses while attempting to build the case for health policy changes that go beyond wholesale repeal. The biggest opportunity at this point is for laying the groundwork for larger changes to come. 

NEXT: Steven Greenhut on What to Expect from the California Legislature This Session

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. By rewriting the rules so that businesses no longer have to cover individuals working between 30 and 40 hours a week, the change would shift roughly a million people off of employer coverage.

    Hang on – are you assuming employers will uniformly take a benefit away from their employees once nobody is holding a gun to their heads and saying they must do so? Or that they should not have the ability to choose what they offer?

    1. They may, but of course the reason for that is because the PPACA drastically raised the cost of providing that benefit in the first place.

    2. The only rational interpretation I can make from Suderman’s comment is that he believes that employers should be forced to cover those people. Why else would you consider this making the health care worse?

      1. I think what he’s pointing at is that if employers take away employer provided healthcare for employees working between 30 and 40 hours, those employees would then be dumped into either Medicaid or the Obamacare exchanges, where they may qualify for taxpayer funded subsidies. So it could shift the cost of their coverage from their employers to the taxpayers.

        Of course, the Swiss Servator is correct also in pointing out that not all employers are necessarily going to dump coverage for their employees that are between 30-40 hours either. It will depend on whether or not a specific employer feels that offering the benefit is worth the cost.

        1. “So it could shift the cost of their coverage from their employers to the taxpayers.”

          This isn’t how I think about the issue.

          This is shifting an implied tax (forcing employers to provide healthcare) to an explicit tax (the government will provide healthcare).

          It’s hard for me to swallow the argument that it’s worse to have an implicit tax versus an explicit tax.

          1. grrr… should read:

            It’s hard for me to swallow the argument that it’s worse to have an explicit tax versus an implicit tax.

            1. Very well put, I agree. And, it’s not as if employers were choking down that cost in a vacuum anyways, they were passing the higher costs off on consumers somehow, so they were already paying for these people’s healthcare. Now we can at least be honest about it.

      2. Progressive advocates force.

        Shocking.

        1. Lots of Progessivism at Reason these days.

    3. Before the ACA, there was no employer mandate at all, and yet employees had health insurance.

      So, what is the assumption that they will dump?

      Perhaps its considering companies with 50+ employees who compete with under 50 companies?

      Meanwhile, there would be employees who gain back their hours.

  2. I usually like Suderman’s reporting on Obamacare but this argument comes off as innumerate. The 30-hour provision was already affecting people who work 40 or more hours a week. Moreover, there is already a legal provision creating a strong incentive to limit the workweek to 40 hours; it’s called mandatory overtime pay. Pushing the cutoff from 30 to 40 hours does no new injustices to employees.

    Also, he is completely ignoring the economic benefit of cheapening 30-40 hour employment.

    1. I kind of arrived at the same conclusion on this. Suderman can be quite good, but I’ve noticed a pattern of insisting that, no matter how bad Obamacare proves to be, any attempt to do anything about it has to be vehemently opposed.

      1. Plus it’s good politics. If people hate the 30 hour rule republicans can be seen as trying to help out and that mean old Obama not letting them.

      2. Suderman can be quite good

        Not really.

        I’ve noticed a pattern of insisting that, no matter how bad Obamacare proves to be, any attempt to do anything about it has to be vehemently opposed.

        It’s good to see that people are finally starting to catch onto his schtick, which consists almost entirely of concern trolling the republicans, even when it makes no sense. The guy is Dave Weigel Junior.

        1. Yes, this whole article does strike me as Concern trolling.

    2. I think it definitely creates pressure to cap workers at 39 hours. Working 43 hours in a week at $20 an hour results in the employer paying 3 hours at time-and-a-half – an extra $50. Moving from 39 to 43 under the new healthcare requirement would cost the same in time-and-a-half, plus an extra $500 or more in healthcare benefits. Big difference.

      This probably only impacts smaller businesses and people at the lower end of the earnings scale – but isn’t that the exact group that was supposed to be helped by the new healthcare law?

      1. You and Suderman are acting like the 30-hour limit magically doesn’t apply to people working over 30 hours already. It does. The 39-hour worker is already costing his employer that extra $500 right now. Pushing the limit back to 40 hours imposes no new costs on anyone. Yeah, it’ll encourage capping at below 40 hours, the same way the present regime encourages capping at below 30 hours.

        Unless I’m missing some subtle nuance of the proposal, there is no way pushing the cap back 10 hours is going to have any negative impact vis-a-vis the present situation for employees or employers, apart from perhaps some people having coverage dropped by their employers (but that is a separate issue).

        1. The 39-hour worker is already costing his employer that extra $500 right now.

          Then with the 40 hour limit the employer can save that $500 by discontinueing health benefits for that employee (an any others that work 30-40 hours a week).

          Pushing the limit back to 40 hours imposes no new costs on anyone.

          I guess the taxpayers that would have to pick up the tab for any subsidies those 30-40 hour a week employees may qualify for once they’re on the exchange doesn’t count.

          I’m not convinced of Suderman’s anlaysis that the change will really make things worse or not. Employers who had capped hours to less than 30 will be able to uncap their employee hours now, which will make their businesses more productive, which will be a good thing economically. Probably enough to offset any negative effects. He defintely seems to be concern trolling. At worst it’s probably a wash.

          1. “I guess the taxpayers that would have to pick up the tab for any subsidies those 30-40 hour a week employees may qualify for once they’re on the exchange doesn’t count.”

            In practical terms, no, it doesn’t. The law’s costs as originally written were already absurdly high, and the capricious rewriting of the law by the administration has rendered the entire cost structure moot. Anything that makes it fall apart faster and more decisively is an awesome idea.

          2. I guess the taxpayers that would have to pick up the tab for any subsidies those 30-40 hour a week employees may qualify for once they’re on the exchange doesn’t count.

            That is tangential to what I’m arguing about, but I never said they don’t count.

            However, since there isn’t a money tree that business owners just pluck their money from, that cost is already there, it’s just been shifted around with accounting tricks.

          3. If we don’t like paying subsidies, then don’t offer them.

            Tax deductibility of health insurance is also a subsidy.

            1. Not any more so than offering the personal exemption and exemptions for dependents on income tax returns. It’s the taxpayers’ money – letting them keep more of it doesn’t strike me as a subsidy.

      2. If you want to work 43 hrs./wk, doesn’t capping you at 39 hrs. hurt less than capping you at 29 hrs.?

  3. The public cost of ACA is so far beyond being realistically supportable that further costs being shifted to the public are basically irrelevant. This eases the burden on business owners (slightly and idiotically albeit), so it’s better than nothing.

    The main point, that the GOP are a bunch of tweakers rather than repealers, however, I agree with.

    1. “The main point, that the GOP are a bunch of tweakers rather than repealers, however, I agree with.”

      I think this is a valid point, but there’s no realistic possibility that they can repeal Obamacare with Obama holding the Veto pen.

      So this is probably the best option that the country has from a non-statist point of view.

    2. The ACA can not be repealed, unless the GOP takes the Presidency in 2016 and retains the House and Senate. Tweaking is what’s left.

      1. The ACA will inevitably be repealed, piecemeal, like forced housing and with the help of Dems that are tired of suffering for it. Or by the SC.

        1. Riiiight, just like all of the other huge government welfare boondoggles, amirite?

          1. This one is different. It’s unpopular and does not dole out enough moolah to enough people.

        2. What forced housing?

      2. Legislatively, yes. But court challenges can kill it.

      3. The ACA can not be repealed, unless the GOP takes the Presidency in 2016 and retains the House and Senate.

        Yes, it can be. Get the Democrats to help over ride the Lefty-Bastard-in-Chief’s veto. If they refuse, well there’s a whole bunch of them up for re-election in 2016 and voters’ memories can always be refreshed.

  4. This turd can’t be polished.

    1. They’re gonna try, real hard, with a power burnisher, and lots of lacquer.

  5. The change, in other words, would make the law even more expensive and create even greater incentives for disruption of the workweek. …. President Obama issued a veto threat yesterday, saying that he would refuse to sign onto the change.

    SEE?! See what a good steward of the taxpayer’s money the President is?

  6. It’s worth complaining about Republicans early and often, but this simply is not a cause for concern. First of all, it will not move past Obama’s desk so it is irrelevant what the second-order effects actually are. Secondly, as kbolino points out the law was already affecting full-time workers.

    Yes, they control both chambers of Congress, but President Obama still wields the veto, and Democrats will continue to back him. Any real change that Republicans hope to make to the health law will have to receive Obama’s blessing. He’s likely to agree to very little.

    That is of course the point and the purpose in passing these sorts of bills. It keeps ObamaCare in the news, makes an issue of Obama’s stubbornness, and scores easy points on the unpopular facets of the bill. It is a smart and obvious play from a political standpoint.

    1. If it’s smart and obvious, then why is the GOP doing it.

      1. Rand Paul must have edited the VRWC meeting minutes when McConnell wasn’t paying attention.

      2. “If it’s smart and obvious, then why is the GOP doing it.”

        Well that’s most likely just random luck.

        1. Broken clock… blind squirrels… etc.

  7. I thought that sign said, “You must be THIS TALL to be Speaker of the House”.

    1. Agreed. Alt-text fail.

      1. Alt-text is like pizza, or sex.

        1. Alt-text is like pizza, or sex.

          The deeper the better?

          *ducks*

    2. Good one

  8. Suderman, your coverage of the ACA has been outstanding, and I have really enjoyed your work.

    Today stands out as a notable exception.

    1. Ouch. I prefer he be referenced as “Suder-MAN!” as a side note.

      1. Ouch? It was a compliment sandwich. But I forgot one slice of bread.

        1. “You look like snoopy and that makes me smile.”

  9. /What many of the rest have said – weak sauce today, Peter.

    However – still, fuck TEAM RED. And TEAM BLUE.

    But this particular “issue”? Meh…

  10. If Republicans want to unwittingly help incrementally turn Obamacare into a single-payer system, they are welcome. That’s been the secret plan all along after all.

    1. Exempting a large chunk of workers from Obamacare = slowly implementing single payer???

      The fuck???

      1. More like slowly implementing the exchanges and a “purer” form of Obamacare. Tony’s argument generally works as follows:

        1) If the people working 30 to 40 hrs/week are offered qualifying healthcare at work, they are not eligible for subsidies on the exchange;
        2) Relieving people working 30 to 40 hrs/week from the employer mandate will on average thus cause more people to purchase in the exchanges, thus bolstering the exchanges and Obamacare.

        Perhaps the other half of his argument is that opposition to the minimum wage will make more people eligible for the Medicaid expansion part of Obamacare, or perhaps noting that some Republican state governments seem more opposed to setting up exchanges than to the Medicaid money, or perhaps thinking that King v. Burwell and others will lead to single payer expansion replacing doomed exchanges.

        1. I was thinking more along the lines of making Obammacare FAIL faster, banking on the belief that people will clammer for even more government control of the health insurance market by implementing a single payer system. Not just de-facto nationalizing the health insurance companies, but full on nationalizing them.

      2. It does not, after all, by itself exempt these worker from Obamacare, it exempts them from the employer mandate, but the individual mandate will still exist.

        Of course, I suppose then Tony is arguing that the repeated delays of the employer mandate in toto have been a backdoor attempt by President Obama to get single payer across.

        1. If by single payer, we end up with a system where everyone buys their own insurance with some subsidy for poor people, that sounds okay to me.

          1. It’s never okay to threaten someone with a rape cage if they don’t buy insurance. It’s also never okay to threaten someone with a rape cage if they don’t pay for someone else’s insurance.

          2. As long as there is still an individual mandate everyone is still essentially a slave, a peon, a serf – whatever – who has to pay a tax or an insurance premium just for the simple act of breathing. Having part of that tax being paid for the poor by other taxpayers doesn’t change that fact.

            I’m not keen on paying some lefty motherfucker in the White House or in Congress for permission to live.

  11. I disagree with everyone, I think. I don’t think any of this means jack shit, and Obama’s just trolling us.

    1. “…and Obama’s just trolling us.”

      {Lightbulb} Hmmm, is it possible Obama’s just been trolling everyone for the last 10 years?

      1. Gasp! You mean…you mean Tony is really Obama?

  12. For one thing, it would make it more expensive. By rewriting the rules so that businesses no longer have to cover individuals working between 30 and 40 hours a week, the change would shift roughly a million people off of employer coverage

    As other people have noted, both this and the part about spending are emblematic of the silly tendency to pretend that things off the government’s official books are free. It’s no different than pretending that the minimum wage is cheaper than the EITC, or that regulation is free, or that tariffs make money, etc.

    1. Agreed – it’s shocking how rapidly even a libertarian magazine editor accepts the premise that businesses should be forced to provide healthcare coverage.

  13. They know full well Obama will just veto it. I suspect it’s a purely symbolic gesture on their part.

    1. What? Are they hoping to sway some democrat voters by being more efficient democrats themselves?

      1. I’m not sure what they think they’re doing. They probably don’t know either. I suppose it’s possible they’re playing politics. Passing this law and letting Obama veto it would give the party a talking point come 2016. E.g. “You have to elect the Republican candidate because if you don’t we’ll never be able to ‘fix’ Obamacare.”

      2. No. What happens is that every single worker who got downsized to 29 hours (and this includes adjunct professors!) suddenly sees the GOP as willing to fight for them.

        Same with businesses who are sick of managing 29 hours work schedules.

  14. It appears to me that the republicans are intent on doing nothing more than fine tuning the ACA, to make it “better.” In other words, they’re indistinguishable from what the democrats would be doing if they held a majority.

    Thank god the red team is in charge now — the revolution begins!

    1. You may have noticed that President Obama is still President, and that the Democrats would filibuster any full repeal attempt.

      There is a tactical argument that repealing only the most unpopular elements– the ones that can attract Democratic votes and perhaps even a signature– will make it harder to repeal the popular sounding ones (so long as they don’t have to be paid for). But without a literal revolution or Presidential election full repeal is not possible.

      1. A better tactic would be to let the Democrat bill hurt as much as possible and continue to use it against the Democrats at in campaigns. Seems to be working. Since you can’t repeal it, next best is to use it against the Democrats. The more they tinker with it to make it “better” the more Republicans own Obamacare as well.

        1. Sadly, most people are covered via their employers or subsidized via government (ACA credits, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.), so the pain isn’t widespread at this point.

        2. If the Democrats allowed us to live in a nation of laws, then that’s what would inevitably happen. But they don’t. They’ve been allowed to change the law by administrative fiat and selectively enforce what’s left. Then they lie.

      2. Also, any replacement will happen in 2017, and hopefully be bipartisan.

        This suggests that bills like this are part of the discussion.

        This bill is saying “We don’t want disincentivize work hours – we don’t want part time nation.”

        And that’s an important mention.

        Meanwhile, I have seen progressives tell people that “if you earn less, you could get X, Y, & Z benefit.”

        That affronts some people and in a good way.

  15. Start working at home with Google! It%u2019s by-far the best job I%u2019ve had. Last Thursday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

    ———— w?w?w.?J?o?b?s?-?S?i?t?e?s??.c?o?m?

  16. Start working at home with Google! It%u2019s by-far the best job I%u2019ve had. Last Thursday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

    ———— w?w?w.?J?o?b?s?-?S?i?t?e?s??.c?o?m?

  17. Start working at home with Google! It%u2019s by-far the best job I%u2019ve had. Last Thursday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,,

    ———— w?w?w.?J?o?b?s?-?S?i?t?e?s??.c?o?m?

  18. $89 an hour! Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening?And i get surly a chek of $1260……0 whats awesome is Im working from home so I get more time with my kids.
    Here is what i did
    ?????? http://www.paygazette.com

  19. before I looked at the draft that said $9300 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz actualy earning money part time on there computar. . there best friend haz done this 4 only about 1 year and as of now cleard the mortgage on there mini mansion and purchased themselves a Car . you can try this out……….

    http://www.Jobs-spot.com

  20. This…this is bullshit. Classic Suderman bullshit/ concern-trolling, except now it’s infiltrated his usually excellent policy analysis. This does not even begin to make sense. Giving employers more freedom-which is what this does in a small way-is always good. Yeah, maybe more people will be shifted to public insurance, but that’s still better than coercing employers and decimating full time work.

    1. Perchance, would you mind defining concern trolling?

      1. Nevermind, Urban Dictionary has schooled me.

  21. holy shite, spambot overload

  22. There’s a difference between the tax paying “public” and “employers” who actually has to take out money out of his pocket every month pay for healthcare for 40 people.

    I pay only a negligible amount of taxes every year (freelance work), if at all. If I was totally unemployed right now, I would pay close to nothing, even though I’m enrolled in Medi-Cal and will surely take in more than I ever pay in. My mother sees a doctor every month now, and she’s a housewife.

    If employers start to dump their workers to the ACA exchange or Medicaid, it won’t affect me and millions of other Americans. I’m not under any illusion that the government will raise taxes on folks working at Mcdonalds. The middle class might have to pay more, but the ACA crew can’t ignore the uproar over increased premiums.

  23. Its a curious thing…the GOP seems to be implementing solutions that are searching for a problem. All the data shows that there has not been an increase in part time workers. In fact full time workers rose and part time workers fell. And involuntary part time workers fell as well. At least according the Census Bureau.

    http://www.offthechartsblog.or…..opponents/

    The uninsured are dwindling, the law has not increased part time workers, more insurers in nearly every state are taking part in the program, the young have signed up…the GOP needs to keep searching, hopefully staying away from solutions that make the problem worse and increase costs. But I doubt it.

    1. In fact full time workers rose and part time workers fell.

      Part time work is still taking up far more of the employment picture than normal, and that’s because of the ACA.

      The uninsured are dwindling,

      Wrong and meaningless. Insurance =/= getting care

      the law has not increased part time workers

      That’s a lie.

      the young have signed up

      More desperate lies. This POS is failing and psychos like you have caused misery for millions of people in the name of ‘equality’. We’re going to tear down your world with the free market, and there’s nothing you can do to stop it.

      1. Try keeping up with facts, cyto. For part time and full time work, you should check census data, which is the indicator, and sadly for you, full time workers increased and part time workers decreased. I even put the link there for you, but you’re (as always) to lazy to check the facts.

        The uninsured aren’t dwindling? Really? Check what right wing pollster Gallup says:

        http://www.gallup.com/poll/180…..sinks.aspx

        Again, I know you are too lazy to read, so just note the title: “Uninsured Rate SINKS.”

        Oh, and the same Gallup poll says :

        “Across age groups, the uninsured rate dropped the most among 18- to 25-year-olds, falling 6.1 points from a year ago.”

        That would be because…wait for it…THEY SINGED UP!

        Keep trying. There are lies being spread around, but it ain’t from me.

    2. But since wage is flat and possibly declining, even “full time” work doesn’t really help. Right?

      http://www.cnbc.com/id/102324257

      And let’s not forget that more than a quarter of jobs are now freelance or temp contract. Many of those might be technically “full time.” And these positions offer little to no benefits and commitment.

      And remember, Obama delayed the individual mandate until this year. Many businesses with almost 40 workers will now have no reason to expand.

      Most businesses will not hire 40 workers, so some of them may hire full time workers without having to pay for their healthcare. So what? You can work full time now and earn less than $1,200 a month. I used to earn 11 bucks an hour working full time during the Bush presidency. Now I can’t even sniff that kind of job.

      1. Here is the point, AM. We were told (by Peter among others) that the ACA would force companies to hire only part time workers and shed full time workers.

        Did not happen.

        We were told by Peter (among others) that the young would not sign up…they did.

        The facts tell you that. You will have to go through any number of gyrations to try and prove that the ACA forces wages down…they have been down and going down for many years.

    3. “The uninsured are dwindling,”
      By tones less than the claim was.

      “the law has not increased part time workers,”
      Right….
      “Who Can Deny It? Obamacare Is Accelerating U.S. Towards A Part-Time Nation”
      http://www.forbes.com/sites/th…..me-nation/

      “more insurers in nearly every state are taking part in the program,”
      Cite missing

      “the young have signed up..”
      Yeah, free shit is great!
      What a fucking ignoramus!

  24. Forcing employer coverage isn’t a good idea. However, my wife’s home health company cares for Medicare patients exclusively. Passing on the cost of doing business doesn’t work. Damn.

  25. “The public, in other words, would be picking up the tab”

    isnt that how it always works, since everything the government has it stole?

    -FFM

  26. How about we just eliminate the employer mandate?

  27. Employer coverage really has to die for any real market-based approach to be realized. If this change brings about its demise sooner, it is worth the cost.

  28. “..The USA spends about twice as much per person on health care as other developed countries. However, the prices paid by Americans or their insurance carriers for medical procedures are typically about triple what is paid in other developed countries. Hence, Americans consume less health care services than their foreign counterparts. Obamacare does not seriously address the price problem and would thus appear likely to only exacerbate the problem.

    Government spending has been increasingly driven by medical care prices. Government pays half of the costs of health care in the USA. When the tax spending aspects of the tax deductibility and exclusions of medical care and insurance expenses are included, the impact of health care costs on the deficits is even larger. Our Government spending on healthcare per capita exceeds that of any other country in the world, including those where there is very little private health care expenditures.

    Adopting the second worst healthcare system in the world, Canada, Germany and the UK are probable the best candidates for that dubious honor, would allow the USA to eliminate much of the Federal budget deficit. Being the second worst healthcare system after the USA, is like being the second worst nuclear accident in the last decade after Fukushima. There probably was another nuclear accident where a few people were injured in the last decade, but none comes to mind immediately…”
    http://seekingalpha.com/article/1647632

    1. Switzerland and Netherlands are like the ACA. We copied them.

      So, before you demand we copy France, let’s see how copying Swiss/Dutch works.

      Don’t hold you breath – we also copied Prussia’s school system, and now we pay more per pupil and get worse results than Europe.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.