I’m a huge sports fan, so it should come as no surprise that I love head-to-head matchups, no matter where they occur. From football to fencing, I am thoroughly entertained watching two opposing sides go at it.

Thus, I much enjoyed the point-counterpoint on health care reform in today’s USA Today. The editorial staff took the pro position with its commentary, “Don’t blame health care reform for rising costs of care.”

Far from a rah-rah, sis-boom-bah endorsement of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the editorial does take the measured approach of “revisiting” reform, rather than the all-or-nothing “repeal and replace” position.

“Repeal is a non-starter as long as Obama is president and, as [a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services] study shows, it would do nothing to change the cost trajectory,” the editorial reads.

Rather, to “revisit” reform, the editors write, “will require difficult and unappetizing choices, such as higher premiums, new limits on what will and won't be covered, and new attitudes toward extraordinarily expensive end-of-life interventions … The answer to soaring costs is not to go backward and undo the benefits of health care reform, but to move on to its unfinished business.”

In the other corner, writing for the con position, is former New York governer George Pataki, and chairman of Revere America, a national organization dedicated to repealing and replacing the health care law. As if you didn’t guess from his title, the commentary’s headline makes it plain — “Opposing view on medical inflation: Repeal and replace.”

“We were told — and how many times did the president say this? — that if you were happy with your current coverage, you wouldn't need to change it at all,” Pataki writes. “Yet under rules issued in June, his own administration estimates that 51% of all employees and 66% of workers in small businesses would have their current plan changed within three years as a result of new mandates.”

Pataki also cites the CMS study used by USA Today’s editors to make his point: Although the president promised costs would decline, they’re in fact projected to go up.

“Higher health care costs. Cuts to seniors' health care. Higher taxes, penalties and fines on employers that keep them from creating the new jobs we need. These are the realities of ObamaCare.”

The lines are as clearly drawn as if it were Redskins-Cowboys, Yankees-Red Sox.

I’m pretty sure I already know the answer to this question, but you all are always surprising me, so I’ll ask anyway: Which side are you on? Is Pataki right to say the only way to get true reform is to repeal and replace? Or, do you favor USA Today’s softer “revisit” message? Take your best shots in the comments.

Register or login for access to this item and much more

All Employee Benefit News becomes archived within a week of it being published

Community members receive:
  • All recent and archived articles
  • Conference offers and updates
  • A full menu of enewsletter options
  • Web seminars, white papers, ebooks

Don't have an account? Register for Free Unlimited Access