Obama's Health Care Will

While I was Florida’s attorney general last year, I initiated and led a multi-state lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of President Barack Obama’s health care law. The Supreme Court will most likely rule on the case next year.

Meanwhile, the costs of implementing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act have been escalating and are predicted to continue to rise as its provisions gradually go into effect. That’s why Congress should pass a bill introduced this week by Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas) to hit the pause button and freeze the law where it stands. This would halt the implementation process until we can determine the law’s actual impact.

We can go even further. The Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction could save billions by repealing the expensive new spending programs created by the law.

I favor this – as do many other current and former state attorneys general. But President Barack Obama would never accept it. That’s why the supercommittee should put the act on ice instead.

The Congressional Budget Office says the law will very modestly improve the budget outlook, but that was based on heroically optimistic assumptions and gimmicks . Done right, a freeze would dramatically reduce the many burdens of an overextended federal budget and put the brakes on scores of the law’s most onerous provisions — provisions a faltering U.S. economy cannot afford.

Without a freeze, businesses, states and individuals face a coming onslaught of costly requirements and taxes. Among the many provisions a freeze could forestall are:

• Tax hikes totaling $50 billion in 2012 and 2013, including a $20 billion payroll tax hike on those who own small businesses and create jobs. Cuts of $15 billion for Medicare Advantage plans in 2012 and 2013, through which millions of seniors get benefits through private insurers.

• New spending of $19 billion in 2012-2013 connected to the law’s ramp up of new entitlement programs.

• Development and implementation of a one-size-fits-all benefits package that will likely be far more expensive than many employers offer today.

• 159 new federal programs, agencies, boards, commissions and panels.

• The controversial Independent Payment Advisory Board, which will have unprecedented authority to implement Medicare cuts without congressional approval.

Allowing implementation to continue would be harmful to economic recovery. Already, health insurance premiums have risen 1 to 2 percent because of the law’s requirements, according to a recent survey from the Kaiser Family Foundation. And that’s before any of the more burdensome provisions are imposed.

But the law is more than expensive. It may hurt patient care. Some hospitals could stop admitting seniors because of cuts in Medicare payments. according to Medicare’s chief actuary. Fewer services are likely to be provided under Medicare as well.

When I initiated the challenge to the health care law more than a year and a half ago, 12 other attorneys general joined the effort. Now there are 26 states involved. More than 30 other lawsuits have also been filed.

Our concerns are diverse and real. Our strong opinion, and that of several lower courts, is that the law’s mandate on individuals to buy health insurance is unconstitutional. It is also clear that the law is politically unstable, with a plurality of the electorate favoring full repeal.

Congress should impose a freeze on further implementation to allow time for the Supreme Court to rule and congressional committees to investigate the damage being done to the U.S. economy.

Americans want their government to work — on a bipartisan basis. Here’s a grand opportunity to do that. The supercommittee would advance health care reform by freezing the new law so that a consensus can be forged on a better way forward.