Many are probably aware of the current debate over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act – sometimes shortened to just the Affordable Care Act (ACA), or referred to in media as Obamacare.  Those on the right want its full repeal for certain reasoning, such as in this writing by The Liberty Beacon published on Thursday, which calls the act destructive to the middle class. http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/2013/10/03/the-politics-and-true-goal-of-obamacare/

While I agree that the ACA has flaws, I can’t agree with the idea that it is turning the nation Socialist, or is so highly destructive to the middle class, as the article argues. In my opinion, saying the ACA is this destructive is like saying that a student doing poorly on one quiz in a semester means that they are doomed to fail a class. Furthermore, repealing the act over exaggerated assumptions would be like said student dropping that class because of that quiz.

In his book, Understanding Health Care Reform, Dr. Arthur Feldman, dean of Temple University’s school of medicine and chief academic officer of its health system, explains potential flaws in the ACA. The insurance companies can slowly raise their premiums up to newly-established limits in the act, and, with premium enforcement left up to states, the companies can simply either raise rates as far as they wish against weak enforcement, or if they feel the state limits are too strict, they can threaten moving to another state, thus causing the states to bend to their will.

Despite its flaws, apparent fears about the ACA’s threat to the middle class appear overblown, according to factcheck.org, a site which checks opinions on their reality.  The Liberty Beacon suggests that the ACA will make customers drop their own doctor for whatever the government chooses. FactCheck dismisses this as false, indicating that the law’s regulatory actions put the government more in between you and your insurance company, keeping coverage caps and denial due to preexisting conditions out of play. Another overblown myth from TLB’s article appears to be a significant loss of jobs or many more being forced to seek part-time work. FactCheck reports that since the ACA passed, the amount of part-time workers for economic reasons actually decreased from 9.1 million in March 2010, when the bill was passed, to 7,9 million in August 2013. As for being a job-killer, FactCheck reports that it is more likely that only a small amount of low-wage jobs would be at risk, not the potential 8.2 million loss being released by opponents. In other words, the bill does not appear to be so destructive to the middle class as TLB is saying.

FactCheck’s full reports on ACA myths can be found here. http://www.factcheck.org/2013/09/obamacare-myths/

So, how can the ACA be improved? In a Wall Street Journal Marketwatch posting, Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a former chief economist for the Department of Labor, outlines six possible improvements. One particular point I agree with, which also addresses a flaw that Feldman points out, is allowing the competition for plans across state lines. She writes that this would allow customers more choice, thus allowing them to figure out plans’ states of origins, and also make an informed decision based on state regulation. Feldman indicated that weak state regulation would allow for insurance companies to raise premiums as high as they want. Reading Roth’s argument, it appears to me that this could knock down a critical flaw, allowing customers to avoid these potential high premiums that the ACA allows. Her article can be read here – http://www.marketwatch.com/story/6-changes-that-would-improve-obamacare-2013-07-12?pagenumber=1

In conclusion, there are ways the ACA can be improved, and one should look around the exaggerated fears of the act to find these potential improvements instead of just getting rid of the bill entirely. The public and legislators need to not cave to these fears and try to help the ACA – which has passed Congress and has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court – reach maximum effectiveness in the desired goal of coverage for all.