“Obamacare is a job killer”. This is the theme of the latest ads being run against Ron Barber, the Arizona Democrat running to replace Gabby Giffords in Congress. They claim the health care reform bill will result in 249,000 jobs being lost.  This number caught my attention because I had read and written about it in the past.

As it turns out, there might be 249,000 fewer people working as a result of Obamacare, but this is actually a good thing. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that hundreds of thousands of Americans will choose to quit working before they turn 65 and get Medicare. Apparently, there are many many people who continue to work into their 60′s just to hold onto employer health insurance. They can afford to retire early, but they would be refused coverage due to a pre-existing conditon, or the cost would be prohibitive due to premium rate ups.

Factcheck.org says the following about “job killing” claims.

The exaggerated Republican claim that the new health care law “kills jobs” was high on our list of the “Whoppers of 2011.” But the facts haven’t stopped Republicans and their allies from making the “job-killing” claim a major theme of their campaign 2012 TV ads:

• Five ads by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce attack Democrats by repeating the “Obamacare will kill jobs” refrain.
• Seven other Chamber spots praise Republicans, using the same theme.
• An ad from the group Freedom Path, supporting Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, says the law is “devastating to small business.”
• Republican Rep. Jo Bonner of Alabama features a large stack of papers he claims are “job-killing regulations and taxes” in one of his spots.

All of this is health-care hooey, aimed at exploiting public concern over continuing high unemployment, with little basis in fact.

As we’ve said before (a few times), experts project that the law will cause a small loss of low-wage jobs — and also some gains in better-paid jobs in the health care and insurance industries.

It’s also expected that more workers will decide to retire earlier, or work fewer hours, when they no longer need employer-sponsored insurance and can obtain it on their own with help from federal subsidies. But that just means fewer people willing to work — and it will free up jobs for those who want them. If anything, that could reduce the jobless rate.

Conservative groups have come up with their own studies to show how the health care reform law will devastate the economy – just like they did back in the 60′s when they campaigned against Medicare. But most “independent” economic researchers have come to different conclusions.

Politifact.com did their own analysis of the “job killing” claims:

A March 2011 analysis by the Urban Institute — an independent research organization — concurred, concluding that, on balance, the health care law is “unlikely to have major aggregate effects on the U.S. economy and on employment, primarily because the changes in spending and taxes are very small relative to the size of the economy.”

After watching the first debate between Jesse Kelly and Ron Barber (and the guy with the very strong Massachusetts accent), I had lots of questions about Barber.  I already know more than enough about Jesse Kelly from 2010 – and I’m not falling for his Mr. Moderate act in 2012.

Ron Barber’s performance in the first debate was okay but not great, and I wasn’t thrilled with his rather vague statements about where he stands on the Affordable Care Act. So, wanting to know who Ron Barber is and what he stands for, I attended last night’s Eastside Democrats meeting where he addressed about 50 people.

Ron Barber talked about having lived in Tucson since 1959. He talked about his work with the Arizona Division of Developmental Disabilities where he created new programs to help people and save government money at the same time. From the description of his work, Barber wasn’t a paper-shuffling bureaucrat, but an innovator who  solved problems and made government better.

Barber talked a bit about the small business he and his wife ran, but more interesting to me were his five years as Gabby Giffords’ district director. This job involved working with people all across southern Arizona and really understanding issues like border security, veterans’ issues, job creation challenges, and what it takes to make southern Arizona the solar capital of the United States. He clearly has the kind of experience and knowledge to make a difference for his constituents.

Barber talked about his positions on a long list of issues with clarity and conviction.  He talked about the need for border security, but also comprehensive immigration reform.   He said his first bill in Congress will address mental health issues and services for veterans who live outside urban areas like Tucson. He said veterans in rural areas need access to mental health services, and he has a plan to make this happen.

I asked Barber about his position on the Affordable Care Act and, to my surprise, he actually knew what was in it.  He talked at length about the good things in the bill and a bit about what needs to be changed.  He still would not say if he would have voted for the bill, stating that he wasn’t in Congress at the time.

When I left the meeting, I had a very positive impression of Ron Barber. He is very sharp and well-spoken. He knows his stuff. He knows the district. He may not be an attack dog in a debate, but he has worked on issues that affect people across southern Arizona. In comparing himself to Jesse Kelly, he said, “there’s a difference between wanting to do something and knowing how to do it”.

Ron Barber said he believes government has a role to play in helping people and protecting people. He also said he believes health care is not a privilege (the position of Jesse Kelly). Ron Barber believes health care is a right.

After listening to Ron Barber speak, I know he is not just a stand-in for Gabby Giffords.  And while he might be a bit more moderate than I am on some issues, I think he will make an excellent Congressman.

In the first Arizona CD8 debate, Ron Barber  was vague about his support for the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), so  I’ve prepared a list of provisions in the law that most Americans support (and one or two they don’t).

In the next debate, I’d like Ron Barber to ask Jesse Kelly why he would repeal these provisions. I would suggest he start with the one that gives seniors a 50% price-cut on their brand drugs when they end up in the Part D donut hole.

CHANGES ALREADY IMPLEMENTED UNDER THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT (from the American Medical Association):

Created a temporary high-risk pool with subsidized premiums for certain people with pre-existing conditions.

Ended health insurance rescission abuse.

Banned coverage exclusions of pre-existing health conditions for children.

Requires public disclosure of overhead/benefit spending by health insurance issuers.

Eliminated lifetime limits on benefits and restrictions on annual limits on benefits.

Requires insurers that offer dependent coverage to allow children to be covered on their parents’ insurance policy up to age 26.

Developed uniform explanation of coverage documents for enrollees.

Medical loss ratios set at 85% for large group plans and Medicare Advantage plans, and 80% for individual plans: In the past, some companies bragged about spending only 50-60% of premiums on medical claims. The rest went to profits and million dollar salaries and bonuses for top management, while premiums went up every year.

Requires plans to cover certain preventive health services at no cost. With most plans, especially individual plans, having $1,000 to $5,000 deductibles, some people were paying $800 per month but had to pay out-of-pocket for every medical service until they reached their deductible. Now they get a little something for their money because their annual checkup and a list of preventive screenings (like mammograms) will be paid for by their plan.

Provides tax credits to small employers with 25 or fewer full-time employees and average annual wages of no more than $50,000 that purchase health insurance for their employees.

CHANGES TAKING EFFECT IN 2014

Bans coverage exclusions of pre-existing health conditions or rating or coverage restrictions based on health status for adults.

Requires guaranteed issue and guaranteed renewability of coverage.

Allows states to form compacts for the interstate sale of insurance.

Increases transparency by requiring health insurers to provide a summary of coverage to applicants and enrollees.

Insurance exchanges: Creates by 2014 state-based and state-administered health insurance exchanges (marketplaces) for the individual and small group market.

Premium subsidies to individuals: Provides refundable, advanceable, and sliding-scale premium credits for individuals and families with modified gross incomes up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level.

The Individual Mandate: Requires most individuals to have minimum acceptable coverage or pay a tax penalty beginning in 2014; exemptions allowed for those who cannot afford coverage, religious objectors or if the individual has income below the tax filing threshold.

MY TWO CENTS:

The mandate was a Republican idea until it was put into the Affordable Care Act. This is about personal responsibility and everyone paying something into the system that protects us all.  If healthy people can opt out, but then opt in when they get sick, the entire system will fail – much like it does now.

One of the Supreme Court justices compared the mandate to requiring everyone to buy broccoli, even if they don’t like it or want it. Health care is not like broccoli because nobody really needs broccoli – but everyone will need health care at some point in their life. And if they don’t have health insurance, the rest of us end up paying for them.

And Ron, please ask Jesse Kelly to explain his statement that health care is a privilege and not a right. What would he tell a parent with a young child born with serious health problems? If the parent worked for a small company, his sick child could be refused health insurance. Before the Affordable Care Act, the parents of that sick child had no right to buy health insurance because that child had a pre-existing condition.  Does Jesse Kelly think it’s a good idea to repeal the provision that guarantees those parents the right to buy health insurance for their child?