The Pros and Cons of Obamacare

* Con: According to Republicans, the Affordable Care Act threatens to "destroy the foundation of the 40 hour workweek." Well, maybe. But that quote is actually from a letter written by the United Food and Commercial Workers union, with two other unions joining in, to none other than Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. The unions have come to recognize what the Dems will not: employers are protecting themselves from Obamacare. Trader Joe's, among others, announced they will drop coverage for employees working under 30 hours. And numerous employers have announced they will cut employees' hours in order to keep them under the 30 hour threshold.

* Con: Republicans also claim that Obamacare will "end up forcing millions out of multi-employer plans." Sorry, that was actually another union complaint.

* Con: The IBD has been keeping track of employers who have cut jobs and/or employee hours in order to avoid the effects of Obamacare. As of 9/20/13, they report 62 private employers and a whopping 239 public sector employers have made these cuts. It appears that school districts and colleges and universities in particular are being affected. The same article notes that low wage earners are being hardest hit, with a record low 27.4 hour workweek in July.

* Con: The Republicans claim that the big insurance companies will have to limit the number (and quality) of doctors and hospitals available to patients in the new exchanges in order to keep costs down. That, in turn, may result in consumers having "long wait times, a scarcity of specialists and loss of their longtime doctor." Oops, wrong again. That information is actually from the 9/15/13 front page story in the liberal LA Times. Does this mean that the Times has actually learned how free markets operate when faced with undue government regulation? But not to worry. Peter Lee, executive director of the California exchange - Covered California - says they can deal with companies that do not sufficiently serve their customers: "...if a plan can't serve patients, we'll close it down from taking new enrollment." Well, that should help.

* Con: Apparently, Health Net will be beating the other carriers in keeping the premium costs down by limiting the size of their networks. Essentially, they are emulating HMOs like Kaiser. Says one health insurance broker: "Health Net will get a lot of business with those rates...But no one mentions you might not be able to see your doctor." (Again, from the 9/15/13 LA Times.)

* Con: If you are in the middle class like I am, no worries. Your premiums may be going up substantially, but you also get to pay higher taxes to pay for those subsidies for those who cannot afford to pay for their own insurance. Don't you feel better already?

* Con: Again, Republicans are complaining that the taxes and fees mandated by Obamacare will "drive the costs of...union administered plans, and other plans that cover unionized workers, to unsupportable levels." But isn't that the idea; to make insurance so unaffordable that we have to end up with the single payer system. (Okay, you got me. The above quote is actually from a resolution passed by the AFL-CIO.)

* Con: While some insurers (as noted above) will be limiting the number of hospitals in their offerings, hospitals themselves have been forced to lay off employees and/or cut their hours, in order to compensate for the added costs of Obamacare. According to the 9/19/13 IBD, over a dozen hospitals have already announced cutbacks, including the well known Cleveland Clinic. So, less hospitals in certain plans, and less employees to staff those hospitals. What's the problem?

* What's the problem with those Republicans? Do they really want to shut down the government over Obamacare? Actually, their latest bill, passed last night, simply delays the implementation of Obamacare for a year, and also eliminates the 2.3% tax on medical device makers. Is not reasonable to think, even if you favor Obamacare, that a piece of legislation over 2000 pages in length, with over 15,000 pages of regs, might need some tinkering? Or, as lawyers would say, come "clean up" legislation.

* Obama gave a press conference on Friday explaining why, in our Constitutional democracy, one side does not get to shut the government down because they are unhappy with legislation passed by the other side. Actually, it was not a bad argument. Of course, Obama did not actually believe one word of what he said. If he believed in our Constitutional democracy he would not have already made 19 changes to Obamacare on his own - all without Congressional approval. Perhaps the most well known change was when he announced he would not enforce the employer mandate until January 1, 1915. Was that delay written into the law? No. Is Obama legally allowed to pick and choose which portions of a law passed by Congress he will enforce, and which he will delay or amend on his own? No, because the president does not get to write legislation. But it's good to be King.

* So what if some big donors got some delays or exemptions for their businesses. Although I have to admit that my favorite exemption was that given to the members of Congress and their staff. Obama wouldn't be trying to bribe Congress with such an exemption, would he? Not at all, it's just unfair to make Congress play by the same rules as the rest of us do. Does it matter that 92% of likely voters think the Congressional exemption is unfair? Why would it, when nearly 2/3 of Americans were opposed to Obamacare in the first place.