The "Fixes" That the Koch Brothers' Funded Economists are Advocating for Obamacare

Are the "free market" economists funded by the Koch brothers calling for a return to free market healthcare? Huh, give me a break. They are beltarian technocrats.

Consider: Charles Blahous, a senior research fellow at the Koch-funded Mercatus Center, has just put out an essay on tweaks he would like to see to Obamacare.

Yup, that's right. He has completely bought into Obamacare as a program and only wants to change things on the margin but keep the coercive healthcare program dangling around the neck of all Americans.

He writes:

I suggest that three foundational principles guide the new Congress’s approach to the ACA.

Principle #1: Fixes should address clear substantive problems. There is no shortage of these, evidenced by the fact that the law’s sponsors have repeatedly concluded that the law cannot be safely implemented as originally written. With so many substantive problems in need of repair, Congress need not waste energy debating symbolic or ineffectual measures. 

Principle #2: Fixes should improve the law’s finances or at least not worsen them. This is important. The ACA encompasses a vast expansion of federal health spending obligations, financed by a number of controversial savings measures and new taxes. It would be tempting but irresponsible to worsen fiscal problems by selectively attacking its controversial financing measures while leaving its spending provisions intact. This does not mean that various savings and tax provisions should not be repealed, but such actions are best accompanied by cost reductions.

Principle #3: Reformers should begin with fixes that can attract bipartisan support. Again, there is no shortage of these; many ACA provisions are opposed on both sides of the aisle. This is simple realism given that the president supports the ACA and will not sign its repeal. The ACA’s supporters committed a huge tactical blunder in 2010 by pushing the law through in a manner guaranteed to unite the opposition party against it. Those who want to fix problems with the ACA should avoid repeating this mistake in reverse when bipartisan options are available.

-RW