Ted Cruz Creates Sixty-Second Television Ad Filled With Blatant Lies About Obamacare (Video)

cruz-obamacareWell, you knew more of these were coming—and here they are.  Ted Cruz has a new video out to support his obsessive, and futile, attempt to “defund Obamacare.”

And this time Cruz is going even further with his blatant lies about the Affordable Care Act.

Which, as always, begs my question, “If the truth about the law is so terrible, why do people like Cruz continue to lie about it?  Shouldn’t the truth be enough?”

Then again you can’t answer that question when all you have are lies—which is something Ted Cruz absolutely knows.  And that’s precisely why, time after time, his comments about “Obamacare” have been ruled by non-partisan fact checkers as flat out lies.

You’d think the leading face of the “defund Obamacare” crusaders would be at least somewhat factual in his assessments about the health care law.  But that’s the problem — he can’t be honest.  Truth and reality simply do not support the delusional world in which Cruz seems to reside.

His latest lie comes in the form of a one minute video where Cruz blatantly takes out of context the comments back in April by Montana Democratic Senator Max Baucus. Watch it here:

In April, Senator Baucus criticized the way in which the Affordable Care Act had been delivered to the American people.  He voiced concerns about the way people had been informed about how the law works, and claimed at that time that it was a “train wreck” without more clarification from the White House.

Keep in mind, he never called the Affordable Care Act itself a train wreck — he was simply criticizing the way in which the American people were being made aware of the facts about the law.

Ted Cruz knows this–but that doesn’t matter.  He still decided to base his video on the premise of one of the architects of the health care law calling it a “train wreck.”

In fact, his video is so inaccurate the Washington Post rated it “Three Pinocchios”—meaning it’s a blatant lie with very little factual information whatsoever.

What Cruz doesn’t mention is that in July, Senator Baucus said his issues with the the law had been answered by the White House, and the concerns he once called a “train wreck” were taken care of.

But, of course, this didn’t stop Cruz from taking this soundbite out of context to create a video which is completely inaccurate.

Just look at the response by Cruz’s representatives when asked about why they took the Montana Senator’s remarks out of context. It’s a response that speaks volumes about how little they care about facts.  The spokesperson said Baucus’ new stance, “Makes no difference, it’s what he said.  We still agree with his original assertion that it’s a train wreck.”

Except, that’s not at all what Baucus said or meant.

In the video Cruz also distorts comments from union leaders, and greatly stretches the truth as it relates to the waivers some corporations were granted to delay the implementation of the health care law.

In fact, the entire 60-second video is simply one lie after another.

See, if I oppose something, I tend to use factual information about what it is that I oppose to support my case as to why I stand against whatever it is.  There’s no reason to lie. I believe the truth about whatever I’m in opposition to is enough to build my case against it.

If you have to lie about something, then obviously the truth isn’t something that will support your claims against whatever it is that you’re opposing.  Which is exactly what Ted Cruz continues to do.

So I encourage everyone to head over to Ted Cruz’s Facebook page and ask the Senator:

Senator Cruz, if the truth about the Affordable Care Act is so terrible, why do you keep lying about it? 

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • ayungclas

    Rafael Jr. needs to get a real job.

  • Pipercat

    Ah, Senator Ted Herring is at again. Today’s word challenge: Smarmy.

  • andres herrera

    This moron was on this week with George Stepanopholous, and tried to claim that we need to sell more F-18’s to Taiwan in order to resolve the Syrian issue. WTF???????????

    • Pipercat

      Hence, my new nickname (below) for my junior Senator from the Great State of Texas!!

  • Steve Sosebee

    What a lying POS ! Send him back to Canada !

    • dn

      sorry, he’s not compatible with canada. our immune system will keep rejecting him.

      • Pipercat

        Yes, he creates a regurgitation response no matter where he resides..

      • Maximumkhaki

        Wish we could heave Harper out of Canada too in the form of projectile vomit.

    • rayb_baby

      Why Canada? He’s Cuban American! Send his vile, lying ass to Cuba. It’s far worse than anything the 55yr embargo has caused them.

      • gemma liar

        I live in south fla,,,,,,,,,,,,, and totototally agree!

    • Karen Christie

      For the love of all that is holy, we don’t want him!!!

    • Robert Eagle Rock Gould

      We dont want him…

  • William Adams

    I can’t understand why these type of lies are tolerated. sue his ass and the repb national committee who paid for these adds. the democratic nation committee could also take out a 30 second add calling him out in front of the entire country and expose the lies this rat spewed out. come on democratic national committee use some of the contrubutions you ask for on fcebook for something.

    • James Daley

      I ask myself the same question why doesn’t the DNC push back on this BS? Do they not care or just have no backbone?

  • CaptCorona

    The quote is very accurate and anyone can google the video. I’ve seen the whole exchange and it’s very much in context of what Baucus said that day. Of course if you are threatened by the reality of this quote of course it you will spend time to debunk it. Bottom line is, if the ACA is so great, why are so many people who are supporters of the President seeking exemptions?

    • Pipercat

      Reality of this quote is that it comes from the guy whose committee basically wrote the law in question. Along with being a notorious Health Insurance shill, Baucus was basically asking tough questions to divert attention from his fabulous chairmanship duties and stewardship passing the bill in 2009! Debunk, you say? Balderdash! Contextualizing is a different endeavor! Oh, and three gold stars for the almost nuanced false dilemma at the end!!

  • AFV

    That 800 number leads to a recording just asking for your name, not your opinion. So say your name is FUND OBAMACARE TED CRUZ IS AN IDIOT then they’ll try to sell you a book.

  • emeraldeyes24

    Please, not all of us CANADIANS are like him! Don’t hate us – cause we try to be beautiful people – he is an anomaly! He really is…. and we love our 24/7, birth to death, no cost healthcare that he probably is receiving for himself and his family. Don’t listen to him!!

    • Pipercat

      We don’t, eh and you are beautiful! Oh, and rest assured, his healthcare costs are being paid for; by the very same people whose access to healthcare is of no concern to him…

    • katherine norton malek

      No, Canadians are NOT all like this goober. Evidenced by the state of their country. Progressive. He’d never get elected to public office in Canada, indeed, he might not even get a job. He talks more like he’s from the back woods of Appalachia. (Not that everyone from there is uneducated, stupid & superstitious, just sayin’). Nevertheless, we wish you could have him back. He’s such an ear-sore.

    • Scott Stull

      I don’t know, you guys also shifted Justin Bieber and Nickelback onto us Americans. I’m starting to think you guys don’t like us. Yeah, you charm us with your “I’m sorry.” and “eh?”, but then you do things like let Ted Cruz become a member of Congress! WHICH IS IT?!

  • er 30AnnieRae

    Would love to tape his mouth shut with my pretty purple duct tape!

  • WTF

    Wow, this sounds true of the Republican party, Obamacare may not be the answer, but at least he is trying something that no other has tried. The Republican Party is Honorless and Deceitful. They will Flat out lie about something and spread rumors to make their point. It’s Shameful that the party has fallen into total disrespect for everyone but themselves and anyone who gives them money.

  • theabby


  • Lin Barber

    went to his page & posted the question to him several times lol I can’t stand a liar

  • motorfingaz

    Something is wrong with him….

  • James Daley

    Hello DNC…..why are you not on this guy? Expose this guy lies.

  • ATW

    Very Nice

  • gemma liar

    gone-zalo cruz just wants to be re-elected by the 97 I.Q. white trash southern retards who put him there ,,,, so he panders,,,panders,,,panders— knowing he wont get litigated against so he just lies,,,lies,,,, hitler taught us the a LIE becomes a TRUTH when repeated enough,,,,gonzalo cruz is fabulist times infinity— and hes the next repub pres candidate??? GO GET ‘EM HILLERY

  • theabby


    • gemma liar

      please spell it correctly when applying it to a US congressman
      the correct spelling is ” SCHMUCK”

      • theabby

        You say tomato I say tomatoe….who cares; it sounds the same….

  • Charles Vincent

    EDITORIAL: The Obamacare bomb
    The scheme is about to blow up the incentive to work
    By THE WASHINGTON TIMES Monday, September 9, 2013

    A mere three weeks remain before the Obamacare exchanges open for business. The likely result will be the closing doors on Main Street, as shopkeepers and entrepreneurs shut down, unable to make ends meet. It’s clear that the wounded economy can’t cope with the exploding costs ahead.

    Ohio announced that premiums would rise in the individual market by an average of 88 percent next year. Premiums will rise 72 percent in Indiana, 125 percent in Wisconsin. Even California, with its relatively robust individual market, is bracing for increases of 66 percent.

    The Obamacare train wreck bearing down on us is about far more than higher costs. A study by University of Chicago economist Casey B. Mulligan documents the perverse Obamacare incentives that encourage Americans to become much less productive. He estimates that the legislation acts as a payroll tax increase for about half the working, non-elderly population earning an average weekly wage. Obamacare will turn those who work hard into losers, declaring part-timers the winners.

    A typical family of four with an income of up to $94,200 will get a generous subsidy for health insurance if the head of the house drops out of full-time work and becomes a part-timer. It’s an implicit payroll tax increase of almost 5 percent. The net result is a reduction in productivity throughout the economy.

    Imposing a large new tax will persuade many that long hours are for suckers. Many will decide that it isn’t worth the effort and drop out of the work force. Why work full-time to see the money taxed away? Better to work fewer hours and keep the same after-tax income.

    Obamacare imposes additional pressure on bosses to move employees to part-time status to avoid large penalties by the IRS. Businesses and some public-sector employers have begun slashing their employees’ hours already.

    In the past month alone, 312,000 Americans abandoned the search for a job, as labor force participation, already at levels not seen since the Carter administration, dropped another notch. This can only grow worse with Obamacare telling employers and employees to work less — or not at all.

    A vibrant economy is the reward of hard work by a lot of Americans, and the government should encourage productivity, not penalize it. Obamacare is a prescription for a shrinking economy, and the nation won’t recover from stagnation as long as it remains the law. In the weeks ahead, the House will get one last chance to prevent the train wreck. The House must stand firm and refuse to fund the president’s health care takeover.

    • cravin moorehead

      Let me guess, Chucky.

      You voted for W. twice, didn’t you?

      I’m hanging on every word you post.

      Sure I am.

      • Charles Vincent

        No I didn’t vote for bush.
        My name is Charles you and I are not familiar enough for you to call me “Chucky”.
        Please take note that the article is from a traditionally left leaning media source.

      • cravin moorehead

        You nitwit, The Washington Times is a right wing rag.

        The problem is that you aren’t smart enough to know the difference.

        And, go a bullshit someone else. You voted for Bush and are ashamed to admit it, Chucky.

      • Charles Vincent

        Again my name is Charles.
        I didnt vote for bush because or the democrat running against him grow up this isnt an elementary school playground.
        It seems I’ve confused the times and the post.
        That matters little, given the wealthof economists saying Obamacare will drive up costs on the people it was intended to help.

      • cravin moorehead

        Poor Chucky.

        He’s fallen so far into the republican rabbit hole that he’s now having a cup of “tea”, with Alice.

        The FACT of the matter is, that in the states where the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act, have been implemented, without republican obstruction, costs have gone down.

        All that is left of the republican party are the very, very rich and tools, like Chucky here, dumb enough to vote republican and against their own best interests.

        Chucky, ask yourself this question. What do I have in common with billionaires?

        If the answer is, “Nothing”, stop giving them so much of your money!

      • Charles Vincent

        No costs haven’t gone down.
        “Ohio announced that premiums would rise in the individual market by an average of 88 percent next year. Premiums will rise 72 percent in Indiana, 125 percent in Wisconsin. Even California, with its relatively robust individual market, is bracing for increases of 66 percent.”
        I am not a republican I am a registered independant because I can’t stomach the liberal ideology nor can I agree with what some of what the far right republicans spout.
        Its also a fact that you have no facts supporting your assertion so instead you resort to name calling and ad homenim attacks like a two year old.
        My money isnt going to billionaires it’s going to a government that doesn’t understand basic budgeting 101.
        My interests are definately not modeled by the democrats or liberal progressives and the republicans at least model some of my interests in terms of The efficacy of the ACA.
        And last but by no means least if you can not bring facts to this discussion stop talking because you’re nothing more than a troll and not a very good one at that.

      • cravin moorehead

        Look, everyone!

        Chuck E. Cheese, is having a tantrum.

        Smells, “republican”, to me……

      • Charles Vincent

        Look a troll lets spin him back and forth and get his hair to do whacky things.

      • cravin moorehead

        You OK, Chuckums?

        You sound a little confused.

        I notice that you are still unable to use punctuation marks.

        Poor Chuckles….LOL

      • Charles Vincent

        Good you’re wasting my valuable time with name calling like a two year old.

      • Charles Vincent

        Interactive Map: In 13 States Plus D.C., Obamacare Will Increase Health Premiums By 24%, On Average

        Pharma & Healthcare


        9/04/2013 @ 12:01AM

        Obamacare makes many significant changes to the U.S. health-care system,
        but one category of change stands out above all others: the degree to
        which the law reshapes the market for individually-purchased health
        insurance. Will the “Affordable Care Act” live up to its name and make
        health insurance less expensive? To help the public understand the
        impact of Obamacare on individual-market premiums, my Manhattan
        Institute colleagues and I have crunched the numbers and created an interactive, state-by-state map, where you can find out how Obamacare affects insurance rates where you live. The results may surprise you.

        The relevant Obamacare insurance filings are still unavailable in 37 states

        In less than four weeks—on October 1, 2013—Obamacare’s subsidized
        insurance exchanges are supposed to be fully on-line. But as of today,
        the relevant governmental agencies have only made public the insurance
        carrier filings for 13 states and the District of Columbia. In other
        words, we’re still waiting for important information on health insurance
        premiums from nearly three-fourths of the states.

        As of September 4, the bulk of the data we have is from the subset of
        Democratic-leaning states that decided to set up their own insurance
        exchanges, instead of letting the federal government do so on their

        (Of the 13 states plus D.C. for which we have the required data, all
        but one—South Dakota—voted for President Obama in the 2012 election.
        States whose rate changes you can now check on our Rate Map include:
        California, Colorado, Connecticut, D.C., Maine, New Mexico, New York,
        Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, the aforementioned South Dakota, Vermont,
        Virginia, and Washington state.)

        We will be adding information to the map from the remaining states as
        they come on-line; Congressional sources inform me that Health and
        Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius intends to release the data
        for the states participating in the federal exchange on September 19.

        Most states are seeing rate hikes; some will see reductions

        While these mostly-blue states will see an average premium increase
        of 24 percent, the impact of Obamacare is highly variable. Nine of the
        states will see increases on average, and five will see decreases on
        average. New Mexico, Vermont, South Dakota, and Connecticut will see the
        steepest rate hikes: on average, 130, 97, 83, and 59 percent,
        respectively. Three states will see meaningful declines in rates:
        Colorado (34 percent), Ohio (30 percent), and New York (27 percent).

        A number of blue states have heavily-regulated individual insurance
        markets that, in the recent past, have driven healthy people out of the
        market. Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, and Washington have all experimented with Obamacare-like regulations, such as community rating (forcing young people to subsidize the old) and guaranteed issue (requiring insurers to offer plans regardless of pre-existing conditions).

        Because Obamacare forces most Americans to buy health insurance, and
        subsidizes the purchase of that insurance for certain low-income
        populations, individual-market premiums in many of these
        highly-regulated states will go down. But in most others, rates will go
        up. If you want to know the details for a particular state, just click
        on the “State Rates” tab at the top, and then select the state you’re
        interested in.

        Who qualifies for Obamacare’s insurance subsidies?

        When I first started writing about Obamacare’s impact on health insurance premiums, supporters of the law argued
        that premium hikes weren’t that important, because many poor people
        will be protected by taxpayer-funded subsidies. While subsidies are good
        news for the individuals who will receive them, most others will face a
        double whammy: higher premiums, and higher taxes to pay for those
        subsidies that others will receive. Our Obamacare Rate Map includes data for all 50 states that will help you understand who qualifies for subsidies, based on the Integrated Public Use Microdata Series
        (IPUMS) collection of Census data. For example, if you select the “Who
        Qualifies?” tab and click on Michigan, my native state, you’ll see that 9
        percent of thirty-somethings without employer-sponsored coverage today
        in that state will qualify for subsidies, while 44 percent of uninsured
        thirty-somethings will.

        In our forthcoming “Your Decision” data set, you’ll learn what the
        median income is in your state, and the income breakeven point at which
        Obamacare’s subsidies would save you money. For example, the average
        27-year-old male Californian makes $31,550 a year; in order for the
        subsidies to reduce his net premiums, he’d have to make less than
        $24,759. Otherwise he’ll pay more—in many cases, a lot more.

        Younger men (+43%) and older women (+27%) hardest hit

        It’s been widely reported in the press that younger
        Americans—particularly younger men—will be hardest hit by Obamacare’s
        changes to the individual insurance market. And, in our analysis,
        27-year-old men fare the worst, with an average gross premium increase
        of 43 percent. It’s important to note that these rates are adjusted
        to take into account those with pre-existing conditions; healthy
        individuals should expect to see even steeper rate hikes. (For more
        details on our methodology, go here.)

        It’s not widely understood, however, that older Americans will also
        see rate increases. Of the states we examined, 64-year-old men will see
        20 percent increases on average. 64-year-old women will see 27 percent
        increases on average, which is actually higher than what 40-year-old women (10 percent) and 27-year-old women (22 percent) will see.

        Vermont (+97%) and Ohio (-30%) are the biggest surprises As I noted above, Vermont is one of those blue states where the
        individual insurance market was already heavily regulated. In 1993, the
        Green Mountain State instituted guaranteed issue and community rating,
        laws that remain on the books today. The other states that have
        instituted such reforms have seen an adverse selection death spiral, in which healthy people correctly see health insurance as a raw deal for them, driving premiums up as they drop out.

        Most observers, myself included, expected Vermont to see rates go
        down under Obamacare, as more people were forced into the market, and
        others were subsidized into it. But instead, rates are going way up.
        27-year-olds in Vermont will see average increases of 133 percent;
        40-year-olds will see hikes of 104 percent; and 64-year-olds will see
        hikes of 55 percent. We see the same phenomenon, to a lesser degree, in Washington State.

        Ohio is a surprise in the other direction. In June, the Ohio
        Department of Insurance predicted that individual-market rates there
        would increase by 88 percent. In August, the state announced that premiums would increase by a lower amount, 41 percent. Our analysis finds that Ohio rates will actually decrease by an average of 30 percent.

        Yevgeniy Feyman, the Manhattan Institute research associate who led
        our team of graduate-student number-crunchers, re-checked the Ohio data
        several times to make sure we hadn’t made a mistake. The difference
        between our numbers and the state’s appears to have to do with
        differences in our methodologies. The state looked at the average
        premiums for all plans offered in the state this year, vs. all plans
        offered in the exchanges under Obamacare. We, on the other hand,
        examined the five cheapest plans offered in each circumstance. While the
        average plan will be more expensive in Ohio, the Obamacare exchanges
        will offer a wider diversity of options there, including less-expensive

        Another difference is that we adjusted our pre-Obamacare rates to
        take into account the percentage of people who were denied coverage or
        charged extra based on a pre-existing condition. The state’s analysis
        looked at the unadjusted rates.

        Differences between this analysis and previous Apothecary work

        If you’ve been following my previous writings on Obamacare’s impact
        on premiums, you know that we’ve dug into the county-by-county numbers
        in California, Washington state, and New York. The state-wide averages in our new rate map differ from the averages in these prior analyses, for reasons I’ll explain below.

        In the case of New York, we learned in the interim that New York’s
        state-subsidized insurance exchange—Healthy New York—accounted for a
        larger portion of the pre-ACA market than we had previously realized. As
        a result, pre-ACA rates were lower than we had calculated, driving the
        percentage reduction in rates from 39 percent in our old analysis to 27
        percent in our new one.

        In the case of California, there are a number of important
        differences between the analyses we conducted in June and this new
        September one. First off, a number of the low-priced plans that were
        available to Californians in June appear to have been pulled from the
        market. As a result, the average pre-Obamacare rate in the new analysis
        was higher than it had been previously. In addition, a previous analysis
        compared the cheapest pre-Obamacare rate to the cheapest post-Obamacare
        rate; the new analysis looks at the five cheapest in each category. In
        the case of California, this change had the effect of narrowing the
        difference between the pre- and post-Obamacare markets.

        In addition, there are a number of plans that have been filed in the
        State of California that were not listed in Covered California’s May
        release. These additional plans, in several instances, resulted in lower
        rates than what Covered California had indicated. Also, insurers such
        as UnitedHealth and Aetna
        have withdrawn from the market, believing that they may not be allowed
        to charge premiums that will cover their costs. If Aetna and United are
        right, these changes will have the effect of artificially depressing
        premiums in 2014, but inflating them in 2015, as costs and premiums
        realign at a higher level. The combination of these changes provided us with a different result
        in California. We had previously calculated that 25- and 40-year-olds
        would each see an 81 percent increase in underlying rates, compared to
        2013 premiums adjusted for pre-existing conditions. The new analysis
        found that rates would increase by 23 and 14 percent, respectively, for
        those age groups.

        I wrote about another way
        to think about California in July. Sam Richardson of the University of
        Texas looked at comparable plans offered by the same insurer, Kaiser,
        under Obamacare and prior to it. They each had $5,000 deductibles and 30
        percent coinsurance, and nearly identical actuarial values. However,
        the pre-Obamacare plan cost $100 a month, and the new plan cost $205. As
        we continue to build out our 50-state map, we intend to conduct this
        type of analysis for each state.

        Stay tuned as we add more features to the Obamacare rate map

        As I noted above, we will continue to add more states and more
        features to the rate map over time. We expect to have data for nearly
        every state by the end of September; once the exchanges are up and
        running, we will drill down into more local and plan-specific detail. If
        you have any suggestions for how to improve the map, tweet us at #KnowYourRates. The link to the map will remain the same, so that you can come back to it whenever you want.

        If you’re in one of the high-cost states that will see premium
        decreases under Obamacare, count yourself lucky. But if you’re among the
        many who will see rates go up, you will have a decision to make. Should
        you sign up for health insurance that is more expensive than your
        coverage today? Or should you drop out of the market and pay the fine?
        That, my friends, is the 2-trillion-dollar question.

      • Charles Vincent

        This is and article from forbes magazine in bothe my posts to you. Also refrain from posting links they dont allow them and the delete your comments.

        UPDATE 1: After we published our map, the office of
        Gov. Paul LePage (R., Maine) reached out to us to correct our pre-ACA
        Maine data. It turns out that a number of significant reforms enacted by
        the Maine legislature from 2011 to 2013 drove down the price of
        individually-purchased health insurance in Maine. The results of those
        reforms started to show up on the Maine insurance market on July 1; our
        examination of Maine pre-ACA rates had taken place in late June. The
        updated results, which we independently verified, are incorporated into
        the interactive map.

        These changes have had a significant, albeit temporary, effect on the
        Maine insurance market; previously, the average price of a Maine
        individual-market policy was $1,228 a month; today, it’s only $316 a
        month: a 74 percent drop. Obamacare drives the average back up to $366 a
        month; the average rate increase is 14 percent. I will examine Maine’s
        2011-13 reforms in a separate article.

    • Tamie D.

      This is an editorial piece. It is full of out and out lies and half truths.
      I live in California and I can tell you that they are NOT projecting higher rates, in fact the rates are lower and projected to go even lower.

      • Charles Vincent

        Really, then post the “real” numbers and evidence to refute what the article claims.

        Here is another article by him citing more evidence.

        Health Care Inflation and the Arithmetic of Labor Taxes



        Casey B. Mulligan is an economics professor at the University of Chicago. He is the author of “The Redistribution Recession: How Labor Market Distortions Contracted the Economy.”

        A modest reduction in health care inflation by itself might increase employment or number of hours worked, but the effect will be overwhelmed by new taxes coming into effect in the next two years.

        Today’s Economist

        Perspectives from expert contributors.
        Health care and the labor market are connected because so much of the non-elderly population obtains health insurance through an employer or the employer of a family member. As the decades have gone by, Americans have been spending more and more on health care, largely through their health insurance premiums, to the point that many families cannot afford the kinds of health insurance plans in which middle- and upper-income families take part.

        So it’s reasonable to wonder whether the health expenditure trends affect the amount of employment in the economy, and thereby whether policy reforms that reduce the rate of health expenditure growth might reverse some of those employment effects.

        The direction of the employment effects of health care inflation is unclear, because it depends on the reasons for rising health care costs. To the degree that rising costs derive from new, valuable (but expensive) pharmaceuticals and medical procedures, rising costs may make people more attached to jobs with health benefits in order to have better access to medical innovations and to pay for them with pretax dollars.

        But health economists have also pointed to less benign sources of health care inflation, including excessive malpractice penalties and a number of other health industry inefficiencies that raise employer health insurance costs without creating commensurate value for employees.

        The economists Katherine Baicker and Amitabh Chandra looked at evidence suggesting that malpracticelike sources of health care inflation are economically equivalent to an implicit tax on employers (see Page 612 of their paper). Economists call it an “implicit tax” because it has many economic characteristics of a tax, even though it is not legally a tax; it reduces employee cash wages by the amount of the implicit tax, and incentive-sensitive employees respond by working less.

        As the House of Representatives began to consider whether to repeal the Affordable Care Act, David Cutler of Harvard testified about the Baicker-Chandra results and asserted that the Affordable Care Act would reduce average health care costs by about 5 percent by 2015, reduce the health care cost implicit tax on employers and thereby increase nationwide employment more than it would have grown had the Affordable Care Act not been enacted.

        He also organized and signed an economists’ letter to Congress asserting that “repealing the Affordable Care Act would produce job reductions of 250,000 to 400,000 annually.” The Affordable Care Act was cutting employer costs and Congress needn’t worry that it would contract the labor market, they wrote.

        Neither Professor Cutler’s testimony nor the economists’ letter mentioned that the Affordable Care Act also creates explicit taxes on employers, subsidies for layoffs and various implicit taxes on employees with many of the same economic characteristics as taxes on employers.

        Other advocates of the Affordable Care Act dismiss the act’s work disincentives as negligible, because incentives supposedly have little effect on employment and hours worked. At first glance, it might seem that we have a case of dueling experts, and that we’ll never know which effect dominates. But that first impression would be incorrect, because each effect cited above – like the employer mandate or the health care cost reduction – is a tax effect, and simple arithmetic is all that is needed to determine the direction of the combined effect of all of the tax-like provisions.

        After I sent Professor Cutler a draft of this post, he responded: “When I was giving my testimony, I was excluding the vast bulk of policies that will affect part-time work, job choice, etc., because I wanted to focus on the overall cost issue. I don’t think you can do this right unless you include all the effects.”

        He agreed with me that readers of his testimony and letter might get the wrong impression that “repealing the Affordable Care Act would produce job reductions” refers to the act as a whole, when it fact it refers to the cost-reduction provisions by themselves. (He also said that neither his testimony nor my calculations quantify the effect of the health care law on job mobility and on the health of the work force, and that he believes these two employment effects to be large. I will return to those issues in a later post.)

        Furthermore, Professor Cutler told me he left out explicit and implicit tax effects because he believed (and still believes) them to be less than the cost-reduction effects, and because he “didn’t have a way to add them all up,” referring to the various effects. Since Professor Cutler’s testimony, I have shown how most of the effects can be added together because cost reduction is a tax effect comparable to the tax effect of the employer mandate, the tax effect of the subsidy for layoffs and so on (see also the methodology in Chapter 3 of my book “The Redistribution Recession”).

        Begin with Professor Cutler’s (probably optimistic) estimate that the act will reduce employer health costs by 5 percent as of 2015. Because of the special payroll and income tax treatment of employer health insurance, 1.5 of those five percentage points of savings will accrue to government treasuries, leaving 3.5 percentage points of health care savings for employers and employees. Americans spend about 18 percent of their gross income on health care and 82 percent on other things: saving 3.5 percent on health care is like saving 0.6 percent on their total budget.

        (In principle, the government treasuries could use their savings to cut marginal tax rates or increase them less than they would have. But they could also use the savings to pay for additional assistance programs that erode work incentives, so I take the middle ground and assume that the government savings by itself has no effect on marginal tax rates.)

        Some cost-reducing provisions in the Affordable Care Act, such as the tax on “Cadillac” health plans or the Independent Payment Advisory Board, may reduce value received by employees at the same time that they reduce employer costs, and therefore affect employment less than cutting implicit employer taxes does. The implicit tax cut effect associated with the act’s cost reductions (as estimated by Professor Cutler) is therefore somewhere in the range of 0.3 to 0.6 percentage points, with the 0.6 percentage point case representing the extreme where none of the cost-saving measures reduces employee value.

        The Affordable Care Act’s explicit taxes on employers, subsidies for layoffs and implicit taxes on employees, together amount to a five or six percentage point addition to the average marginal tax rate on labor income (this includes the fact that many people will not take part in programs for which they are eligible, the tendency of the act to move people off means-tested uncompensated care and the fact that the act implicitly taxes unemployment benefits, as I noted in testimony before the Human Resources Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee). By these calculations, the tax effects that Professor Cutler left out are about 10 times greater than, and in the opposite direction of, those he conveyed to Congress.

        Professor Cutler projected that the Affordable Care Act’s cost reductions by themselves will increase employment in 2015 by about 400,000, or about 0.3 percent of total employment (see Figure 2 in his testimony). If his estimate of the cost-savings channel is accurate, and I am right that the overall labor market effect of the act is about 10 times larger (in the other direction) than the cost-savings channel, we might then expect the act to contract the 2015 labor market by about 3 percent rather than expand it.

        As time goes by and additional research results become available, it increasingly appears that even the experts failed to fully appreciate the labor-market-depressing effects of the Affordable Care Act at the time it was passed

      • Charles Vincent

        And yet some more evidence.

        Angela Braly, then-CEO of WellPoint, testified before Congress about allegations that its California unit, Anthem Blue Cross, was raising premiums on some customers by more than 30 percent. Last week, California announced that the Affordable Care Act would increase non-group insurance premiums by as much as 146 percent. (Image courtesy U.S. House of Representatives)

        One of the most serious flaws with Obamacare is that its blizzard of regulations and mandates drives up the cost of insurance for people who buy it on their own. This problem will be especially acute when the law’s main provisions kick in on January 1, 2014, leading many to worry about health insurance “rate shock.”

  • cravin moorehead

    You can always tell when a republican is lying, by two distinct tells. The first is that pleading look characterized by displaying a wrinkled forehead and pleadingly raised eyebrows. The second is a much easier tell. His lips are moving.

  • Irish_lass

    thou shall not lie. He is sold his soul to the devil. It is the only explanation. Does he play a really mean blues guitar?

  • andyb

    Ted Cruz Facebook page deleted my link to this article within a minute. They are very afraid of the truth

  • gemma liar

    a regressive should be re-named “Louis zher” or,,,maybe: lou zher for short

  • skiweed

    THe snake won’t let you leave any comments on his fb page.

  • Lexiee

    Why do you lie!? Do you really think that intelligent Americans believe anything that comes out of your mouth? Conservaturds and Teabaggers might but not people with any intelligence.

  • davehorne

    I’m an American living in Europe. You have the right to be stupid. You shouldn’t, however, abuse that privilege.

    I have no idea why conservative Americans are so against universal health care. Europe, Scandinavia, Australia, Canada, and Japan all have one form or another of universal health care.

    The US pays almost 18 percent of it GDP for health care costs. In Europe the most any country pays is 12 percent of GDP for health care … and everyone is covered. (You can easily look this up, Google is your friend.)

    The rest of the world has figured out this problem … we’re waiting for the US to catch up.

    Oh, one more thing, longevity rates and infant mortality rates are better in Europe, Scandinavia, Australia, Canada, and Japan than in the US. If you don’t believe me, take a look at our own CIA World Factbook.

    I really get tried of having to write the same stuff over and over to educate my fellow Americans.

    • Jerry McCoy

      Dave, the US isn’t against it. The hugely profitable insurance industry that is largely responsible for the ridiculous health care costs in America is against it. They have the money (coupled with the money from many other corporate giants – e.g. Koch Industries) to buy whatever trends they wish to perpetuate.

  • sharon

    I would hope his expensive, government funded health care provides for psychiatric help. He seriously needs it. I’m waiting for him to renounce his health care and other benefits that he an his useless party members receive from the taxpayers. He is a mean spirited, evil man.

  • Jerry McCoy

    It’s still the money. It’s always the money. Cruz is raising money. Even the Republicans hate him, but the far right keeps sending him money. He’s a whore.

  • Martin S Ryszka

    Once again proof that Webster and all other dictionaries have it wrong. Spelled correctly it’s R-E-P-U-B-L-I-C-O-N, not with an ‘A’ but an ‘O’ to more accurately call them what they are; CONS, liars, deceivers, avoiders of truth, connivers and falsifiers.

  • HeartforPeace

    Interesting….just tried to post on Ted Cruz’s Facebook page as suggested. Included the quote about the Washington Post rating of his video. I received a message that my post could not be added at the moment and that I may not have “permission to be on this page” Really???

  • David Michael Pierce

    Well, its been 3 months since the last tripe was posted here. What do you moronic, vulgar progressive Obamatons have to say NOW?

    • amanda sanchez

      King David was an IDOLATER and should have died. He also had the husband of
      his idolatrous girlfriend murdered, for which he too should have been killed.