There's no 'job-killing health-care law'

By Ezra Klein

I'm glad the House GOP is planning to "resume thoughtful consideration" of their bill to repeal the health-care reform law. Nothing about the tragedy in Tucson makes the health-care law any better, any worse or any less worthy of further debate. It's important that we're able to continue discussing it and improving it and thinking it through. But if we are going to have "thoughtful consideration," then let's have it. In particular, let's change the name of H.R.2, which is now called "The Repealing the Job-Killing Health-Care Law Act."

There's no "job-killing" health-care law. There's only the health-care bill. And my problem with the modifier "job-killing" isn't that it's uncivil, though perhaps it is. It's that it's untrue.

The GOP lifted the claim from this Congressional Budget Office report (pdf) -- but the report never says the bill will kill jobs. What it says, rather, is that the law will slightly reduce labor. It's not that employers will fire workers. It's that potential workers -- particularly older ones -- will retire somewhat earlier. "The expansion of Medicaid and the availability of subsidies through the exchanges will effectively increase beneficiaries’ financial resources. Those additional resources will encourage some people to work fewer hours or to withdraw from the labor market."

This is true for anything that increases financial resources. One effect of tax cuts, for instance, is that people work less because their income is more adequate to their needs. When you make people richer, they find they have more choices. That's a good thing.

Another way the bill will reduce labor supply, according to the Congressional Budget Office, is through "provisions that prohibit insurers from denying coverage to people because of preexisting conditions and that restrict how much prices can vary with an individual’s age or health status, will increase the appeal of health insurance plans offered outside the workplace for older workers. As a result, some older workers will choose to retire earlier than they otherwise would." So if you're a 62-year-old with the means to purchase health care but the impediment of a preexisting condition, you can now choose to retire because you'll be able to buy care on the individual market. If you think giving older workers that choice is a problem, then you must really hate Social Security.

I don't believe it's the GOP's position that we should maximize labor supply by making people poorer and making it harder to get health care on the individual market. Quite the opposite, actually. I think the GOP wants people to be wealthier, and I know from the McCain campaign and from speaking to Rep. Paul Ryan that they want to transition away from the employer-based market. But just as it wouldn't be civil or thoughtful for a Democrat to call H.R. 2 "The Keep Americans Poorer and Discriminate Against People With Pre-Existing Conditions Act of 2011," it's neither civil or thoughtful to call it "The Repealing the Job-Killing Health-Care Law Act."

I can't deny, of course, that "The Repealing the Health-Care Law Which Might Slightly Reduce the Long-Term Labor Supply Act of 2011" doesn't have the same ring to it as "Repealing the Job-Killing Health-Care Law Act." But civility means sacrifices.

Photo credit: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque.