The White House argues that repealing ObamaCare would plunge the country into a bigger mess than the one it's already in. Two hundred notable economists beg to differ.
From the corridors of Capitol Hill to the halls of academia, the economists -- including two former directors of the Congressional Budget Office -- say the so-called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will not stem America's deficit but will add to it -- $500 billion in the first 10 years and nearly $1.5 trillion over the following decade.
"It creates a massive new entitlement at a time when the budget is already buckling under the weight of existing entitlements," their letter to Congress states.
The defense that ObamaCare somehow will cover its bets is "based on omitted costs, budgetary gimmicks, shifted premiums from other entitlements and unsustainable spending cuts and revenue increases," the economists write.
Their final analysis: ObamaCare is "fiscally dangerous" and should be repealed.
Proponents say a repeal won't pass the Senate and certainly not President Obama's veto. But House Republicans hold the purse strings. Ultimately the courts will decide ObamaCare's fate.
Given the facts piling up against the Democrats' signature "accomplishment," let alone its constitutional nose-thumbing, the case for termination couldn't be more clear.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Authorities recover rifle used to kill Westmoreland police officer
- Kane turns to former Maryland attorney general to lead porn email probe
- Chicago mayor fires police chief in wake of video release
- Starkey: Tomlin lived in his fears
- Founder of Z&M Cycle Sales in Hempfield killed in Florida motorcycle crash
- Film session: Long shots dotted Steelers’ passing game
- Steelers receiver Wheaton takes advantage of opportunity in breakout game
- 2,200 union employees of ATI lose coverage
- Slain St. Clair officer walked into ‘worst nightmare’ for police
- Woman gets probation in deadly shooting outside Pittsburgh bar
- Penguins’ reshuffled top line of Crosby, Dupuis, Kunitz looks familiar