In my latest reading of Core of Conviction: My Story,
Michele Bachmann presents many of the usual conservative criticisms of
Obamacare: that it cuts Medicare, that it increases demand and thus the
price of health care, that it can lead to rationing, etc. Bachmann also
criticizes how states require health insurance companies to cover a
bunch of things that she apparently does not regard as necessary,
resulting in high premiums. In addition, Bachmann not only has a
problem with the federal government requiring everyone to have health
insurance, but she also disagrees with the Massachusetts plan that had
such a requirement, stating that it has left Massachusetts residents
with the highest premium rates in the U.S. (See, however, this article,
which says that the high premiums are not due to health care reform and
that the premiums are high at least in part because of low deductibles
and the high number of health professionals.)
Bachmann
made another criticism of Obamacare that I had not heard before: that it
imposes on makers of medical equipment a tax of $40 billion over ten
years, in order to pay for Obamacare. Bachmann thinks that this stifles scientific innovation that could save lives and also money for the health care system.
She prefers letting the free market develop innovations, which would
result in more jobs and more money for shareholders, encouraging them to
invest in more scientific innovation. Is Bachmann accurate in this claim about Obamacare? Well, others have made this criticism about the tax, and this article says that even progressive Democrat Elizabeth Warren has issues with taxing medical equipment makers.
Bachmann
makes another interesting point on page 171. She says that we should
have a system in which a lot of health insurance companies and health
providers are competing for our business. She then asks, "Could the
government help the poor, or those who might not be able to make
clearheaded decisions?" Her answer is pretty skeptical. I
appreciated her question, though, because that's been a concern that
I've had about health-insurance in a free market. When there are a
bunch of options out there, how can I be sure that I'm picking the right
one? And what would happen if there comes a time when I actually need
to use the health insurance, and I find that I did not pick the right
option (i.e., what I need is not paid for)?
One thing
that I liked in my latest reading was that Bachmann highlighted that
criticism of the Federal Reserve spans the political spectrum, from Ron
Paul to socialist Bernie Sanders. This was a refreshing exception to
her usual demonizing of the Left.