The Affordable Care Act—Jobs and Costs



         The Affordable Care Act – Jobs and Costs


    This paper attempts to consolidate various nonpartisan reports regarding the impact of the Affordable Care Act in regards to jobs and costs. We will make every attempt to update the paper on a routine basis in order to keep our readers informed. In each case, we have included a link to the entire report, study, or article. Secondary links to sources are not always provided but can be obtained through the main link we provide.


Questions about the Affordable Care Act? Head to Ruskin presentations


Confused about the Affordable Care Act? Michael Van Hoek is your man.

Van Hoek, and thousands like him, are fanning out across the country this month to explain the new healthcare regulations. LINK



Minnesota likely to avoid states’ budget shock from ACA’s ‘welcome mat’ effect

by Elizabeth Stawicki, Minnesota Public Radio

June 28, 2013






Expanding Medicaid will generate over 9,000 new jobsacross Mississippi by the year 2020. This investment in health care will create more new jobs in Mississippi than Nissan and Toyota.

combined. http://msroadtoreform.org/health-care-reform/mississippi/medicaid

New Mexico

Impacts of Obamacare on New Mexico’s indigent healthcare programs still unclear

By Stella Davis  currentargus






According to the Health Policy Institute of Ohio, by 2015 Medicaid expansion will create at least 23,000 new Ohio jobs in health care and other related industries, increase the earnings of Ohio residents by at least $16.7 billion, and increase the state’s total economic activity by at least $18.6 billion from 2014 to 2022. In fact, costs to employers could total $876 million to $1.3 billion in the states that oppose, are leaning against, or remain undecided on expansion as the result of penalties for noncompliance with the Affordable Care Act. LINK http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/healthcare/news/2013/04/02/58922/10-frequently-asked-questions-about-medicaid-expansion/



According to an independent study by the University of Nebraska Medical Center,

spending by the federal government on Medica

id expansion would generate at least $700 million in new economic activity every year in Nebraska, which could

finance over 10,000 jobs each year through 2020.  http://www.nasmhpd.org/docs/publications/NASMHPDMedicaidExpansionReportFinal.pdf





If individual governors and state legislatures do not choose to participate in the new

Medicaid expansion program, foregoing the substantial federal funds associated with expansion, their states will in effect have significant lost opportunities to reduce their budget deficits and increase economic activity. States that do not participate will lose new revenues coming into their states, and at the same time, will see their tax dollars

flow to states that chose to opt in to the new expansion program. The states that opt in

will then benefit in budget and revenue gains, with little accruing to the non-participating

states. In other words, if the state chooses to opt out, citizens would be contributing

federal tax dollarsto a program their constituents would never benefit from.   http://www.nasmhpd.org/docs/publications/NASMHPDMedicaidExpansionReportFinal.pdf

The key finding is that Medicaid spending generates economic activity including jobs,
 income and state tax revenues at the state level. Medicaid’s economic impact is 
intensified because of federal matching dollars –state spending pulls federal dollars
 into the economy. Medicaid funding supports jobs and generates income within the
 health care sector and other sectors of the economy due to a major “multiplier effect.” 


Massachusetts Shows That Expanding Coverage Reduces Costs

Massachusetts’ experience with its health reform effort offers strong evidence 
that expanding  coverage under a comprehensive health reform plan can lead to
 sizeable reductions in state costs for uncompensated care.
Massachusetts enacted legislation in 2006 to provide nearly universal health care
 coverage. The legislation combined a Medicaid expansion with subsidies to help 
lower-and moderate-income residents purchase insurance, an employer responsibility 
requirement, and a requirement for individuals to obtain coverage. All of these also are
 core elements of the ACA.

Expanding affordable health insurance options and instituting an individual mandate significantly decreased spending on uncompensated care in Massachusetts. The state replaced its Uncompensated
Care Pool (also known as “Free Care”) with the Health Safety Net, which provides
financial support to public hospitals and community health centers that serve
lower-income residents who are uninsured or underinsured
or who have significant medicalneeds.

In 2008, the first full year of health reform implementation, Health
Safety Net payments were
$252 million, or 38 percent lessthan the previous year’s Uncompensated Care Pool payments. This reduction in uncompensated care costs coincided with a decline in the share of residents who are uninsured. Only 2.7 percent of residents were uninsured in 2009, compared to
5.7 percent in 2007.

 Page- 19-   LINK –The National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors (NASMHPD)

 Alan G. Raymond, “

 Massachusetts Health Reform: A Five-Year Progress Report”

 Foundation of Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, 


The Affordable Care Act and Jobs– Just the Facts

Republicans typically state the The Affordable Care Act is a job killer. Their job killer claims is the most significant reason for eliminating the law.

We have culled the internet and provide a list of statements by non-partisan sources. In each case we provide a link to the source.

From: cnn.com

As of 2010, 97% of small businesses had fewer than 50 employees, according to the U.S. Census. That means Obamacare’s employer mandate applies only to 3% of America’s small businesses. Of companies with more than 50 workers, 96% already offer health plans, government data shows.

The ADP jobs survey — one of the largest surveys of private employers — shows that small businesses are still hiring strong.

“There is little evidence that fiscal austerity and Health Care Reform have had a significant impact on the job market,” said Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics and a collaborator on the ADP report, in a press release with the August survey.

The case for hurting job growth: Uncertainty was the big reason economists gave for why employers might not be hiring — uncertainty over how much it’s going to cost to insure additional workers, and how much health care premiums for existing employees might go up. LINK

Center For Economic And Policy

This report may be long but well worth the read

Is the Affordable Care Act a Hidden Jobs Killer?

Written by Helene Jorgensen and Dean Baker
Wednesday, 24 July 2013 12:40
Opponents of the ACA have labeled the health care bill a “jobs killer.” It is unlikely,
 however, that the bill could have much impact on employment except among the relatively
 small number of firms that are near the 50-worker cutoff.  In a post for the 
Roosevelt Institute's Econobytes, economists Helene Jorgensen and Dean Baker respond
 to the claim that firms will reduce the number of hours per week that employees work
 to below thirty so that they fall under the cutoff, thereby incurring a penalty 
under the ACA:

An analysis of data from the Current Population Survey shows that only a small number

(0.6 percent of the workforce) of workers report working just below the 30 hour cutoff in the range

of 26-29 hours per week. Furthermore, the number of workers who fall in this category was actually lower

in 2013 than in 2012, the year before the sanctions would have applied. This suggests that employers do

not appear to be changing hours in large numbers in response to the sanctions in the ACA.

There have been numerous accounts of employers claiming to reduce employment or adjust hours in order

to avoid the obligations of the ACA.

  • If this is the case, we should have first begun to see evidence of the impact of ACA in January
  • of 2013, since under the original law employment in 2013 would serve as the basis for assessing
  • penalties in 2014.
  • The Obama administration announced on July 2, 2013 that they would not enforce sanctions in
  • 2014 based on 2013 employment, but employers would not have known that sanctions would not
  • be enforced prior to this date. Therefore we can assume that they would have behaved as though
  • they expect to be subject to the sanctions and acted accordingly.

Reducing average hours of work below 30 per week, could plausibly have an impact on employment

patterns, but the data do not indicate that this is happening.

  • Several large employers have claimed that they would deliberately keep workers’ hours below
  • 30 hours per week in order to avoid having them count toward the number for whom they would
  • have a $2,000 penalty.
  • Some surveys of small businesses also report that employers intend to reduce workers’ hours to
  • avoid the penalty, even they are not bound by the law.
  • Fortunately, it is possible to test whether employers are actually reducing hours below the
  • 30-hour threshold.
  • The Current Population Survey (CPS) provides monthly data on workers usual weekly hours.
  • We used the CPS to compare the first four months of 2013 with the first four months of 2012.
  • We looked at the numbers and percent of workers who reported working 26-29 hours a week.
  • We considered this range a reasonable cutoff for an ACA effect. Presumably if an employer would
  • have a worker put in more than 30 hours a week in the absence of ACA penalties, they would require
  • a worker to put in close to, but less than, 30 hours in order to avoid the penalties.

Table 1 shows the results.







There are two points that are striking. First, a very small share of the workforce falls into this group.

  • Well under 1 million workers, roughly 0.6 percent of the labor force, typically work between
  • 26-29 hours a week.
  • It is also important to remember that many of these workers choose to work less than a full-time job.
  • More than two-thirds of the workers who report working less than full-time jobs say that they are doing
  • so by choice.
  • If this ratio also applies to the workers who usually work between 26-29 hours it would mean that less
  • than 300,000 workers, or roughly 0.2 percent of the workforce, are working this number of hours as a
  • result of their employer’s decision.

The other striking aspect to the data in Table 1 is that the number and percentage of workers putting in between

26-29 hours per week was slightly lower in 2013 than in 2012.

  • The average percentage of workers in this category for 2013 was 0.597 percent.
  • That is down from 0.604 percent in 2012.
  • While this drop is not close to being statistically significant, the change is in the wrong direction for the
  • ACA as job-killer story.

While there may certainly be instances of individual employers carrying through with threats to reduce their

employees’ hours to below 30 to avoid the sanctions in the ACA, the numbers are too small to show up in the data.

  • It appears that in setting worker hours employers are responding to business considerations in much
  • the same way as they did before the ACA took effect.
  • While the sanctions in the ACA may provide some marginal incentive to reduce worker hours below the
  • 30-hour cutoff, other considerations in setting worker hours appear to be far more important.

Jimmy Kemmel- Obamacare VS The Affordable Care Act

Well, it’s obvious the Republicans have done a great job at distorting the truth regarding The Affordable Care Act- Or is it Obamacare?

A Jimmel Video





By Rick Staggenborg

Medical insurers around the country are announcing a new round of double-digit premium increases, belying the promise that Obamacare would reduce costs of health care. Although the “Affordable” Health Care Act is not yet fully implemented, it is reasonable to assume that the further expansion of benefits will dwarf the promised savings as detailed in the error-filled CBO report Democrats use to justify the claim. The fact is that the ACA was never meant to be real health care reform, which can only be achieved through truly universal health care in the form of a single payer, Medicare-for-All model or something similar. What it amounts to is a taxpayer bailout of a failing medical insurance industry.

People who wonder how the tremendously profitable insurance industry can be failing need only consider the basic fact that as medical insurance costs rise, fewer people can afford it and profits drop, forcing further premium increases to maintain profit margins. This is the “death spiral” that single payer proponents have talked about from the beginning of the health care “reform” debate but which was ignored by the corporate media and both major Parties. It is time that taxpayers demand an honest discussion about the one option for addressing the crisis in health care access and affordability. Congress will continue to avoid this debate if we do not force them to. We need to make them fear us more than the anger of their political patrons in the medical-industrial complex of the insurance, pharmaceutical and corporate health care delivery industries.

Democratic politicians used a very clever strategy to avoid talking about true universal health care. At the outset of the debate, they took single payer off the table, arguing the self-fulfilling prophecy that it was “not politically possible.” Knowing that many of their own members were as dependent on campaign contributions from these industries as are the Republicans, they deliberately undermined support for Medicare-for-All by presenting a classic bait-and-switch in the form of a public option that had no chance of leading to single payer. The cat was out of the bag when Democratic Senator Chuck Schumer assured the medical insurance industry that they had no intention of creating a public option that could compete with for-profit insurance.


It should have been obvious from the beginning, when Senate Finance committee chair Max Baucus was put in charge of the debate. He was the recipient of $6 million from corporations in the medical-insurance complex in the election cycle preceding the debacle. It is no surprise that he had 13 doctors, nurses and lawyers arrested during the first two days of hearings for “disrupting” the discussions with the representatives of industry by calling from the gallery for consideration of a single payer option.To assure that there would not be mass dissention in the Democratic rank and file, Rahm Emanuel cleverly convinced Democracy for America and MoveOn to make the spurious claim that there millions of members supported the public option, without questioning those members or having any sort of open debate that would have demonstrated the overwhelming support for single payer that was evident at NetRoots Nation in Pittsburgh in 2009. In the end, Democrats gave up even the pretense of universal health care in accepting what was essentially Ron Wyden’s Healthy Americans Act. The insurance exchange, the mandate and other features of Obamacare came straight from that plan, which was put on the back burner while the phony debate about the public option was going on. Democratic leaders declared victory and told their supporters to go home and tell everyone what a good job they did against the big, bad Republicans and the insurance industry that got millions of new customers at the taxpayer’s expense.

Health care costs are approaching 20% of GDP, with no prospects of improvement in sight. If Democrats and Republicans do not unite to demand their politicians have an honest debate on the merits of single payer they will continue to see personal and taxpayer costs escalate, adding to personal and federal debt in a time when Congress claims the latter is a crisis. What most Thanks to the fact that corporate interests control the terms of political debate, most Americans don’t realize that they are already paying more than the full costs of a universal health care system through taxes, subsidies and personal health care expenditures.
Taxes for Medicare, Medicaid and the uninsured alone are nearly enough to fit the bill for a system of universal health care that already exists in other countries and costs about half what we pay in the American system that leaves an estimated 23 million uninsured, mostly working Americans. Other hidden costs include medical bankruptcies, loss of competitiveness by employers who pay the brunt of the cost of insurance, lost productivity by the uninsured, failed businesses for entrepreneurs who lose their businesses when they are sick or injured and on and on.
Peter DeFazio (D-OR) has a well-deserved reputation as a fighter for the average American, but he gave in far too readily to the fallacy that we cannot afford to give Medicare to everyone because “it has (financial) problems of its own.” Belatedly, he has acknowledged that the worst of these problems is the Wyden-supported Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 that gave us an unfunded Medicare prescription benefit plan under which pharmaceutical manufacturers can name their own price and the government is not allowed to negotiate. Even now, he refuses to discuss single payer with members of Physicians for a National Health Program. I know this because I have repeatedly asked him myself. This explains why he is still ignorant of the fact that the reason universal Medicare coverage will save Medicare is that it covers both the healthy and the sick, creating a universal risk pool so that everyone pays and everyone has access when they need medical care.
A universal health care system is inevitable unless Americans choose to give up their own access to health care. Even Republicans can’t make that seem like a good thing. If Democrats don’t join third parties and independents in calling for an honest debate on single payer health care, they will follow Republicans in the ashcan of history when Americans wake up to their collective power and vote for candidates who will put their interests over corporate profit.
To hear a discussion about health care and democracy, listen to this podcast from SFPI Radio, the voice of Soldiers For Peace International on the worldwide web every Saturday.


Things you should know–The Affordable Care Act

During the the first debate, Mitt Romney emphatically stated that 15 member Independent Payment Advisory Board, (IPAB) created under the affordable care act will determine what treatments patients receive. President Obama rightfully pointed out that the board was forbidden to make patient – Dr. decisions by law. This is simply another Romney lie. Romney alluded to the board on six separate occasions and on each one, his statements have been determined to be in accurate. The advocacy group, Health Care for America, referred to Romney’s statements as a, “boldface lie, and he knows it.”
Many nonpartisan writers, reporters and other groups have written in the last three months extensively about the Republican strategy. Their entire strategy is a ruse. Republicans hate Obama to such an extent they will vote for any candidate regardless of the issues. The Republican strategy is to confuse or attempt to confuse the remaining voters. And yes, many people actually believe his lies. For more on this issue you can refer to this link. thehill

Medicare: Facts with referential proof

Medicare: Facts with referential proof

Aug 16, 2012

In the last few days, there is been considerable political rhetoric on both sides regarding Medicare. We have investigated several sources on the internet and are compiling these into a single bundle that hopefully we all can understand. This process may take another few days and you are welcome to return as we’ll be updating the information as it is obtained. With each statement, we will attempt to provide the source through a link. From the numerous sources, we have reviewed thus far, it is evident the Willard Romney/Paul Ayn Ryan ticket is totally distorting the truth. Romney can lie with the best of them and his base would believe it if he told them, Mr Obama was really white guy who turned black in order to use the race card to his advantage.


1. The Romney-Ryan campaign in its latest TV ad assails Obama for approving cuts to Medicare in 2010. The ad; “Obama has cut $716 billion dollars from Medicare,” says the narrator. “The money you paid for your guaranteed health care…is going to a massive new government program that’s not for you.”

2.Romney also claims the president’s actions will ultimately lead to reduced access to health care.

3.Gov. Sununu claimed in an interview with Soledad O’brien, that the President “reduces services to Medicare beneficiaries currently on the package.”

4. Romney also claims, Obamacare adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt, and pushes those obligations on to coming generations.

A Congressional Budget Office report notes keeping “Obamacare” would not mean a $716 billion decrease in Medicare funding. The cost of Medicare would continue to rise, just not as rapidly. The CBO says the money – Democrats call it savings, Republicans call it cuts – would be achieved mostly through cutbacks in payments to providers and by changes to payment rates in private Medicare plans. (reference number 1)

As stated by FactCheck.org, Romney’s “figure ignores major cost-cutting provisions including cuts in the future growth of Medicare and increased payroll taxes and investment-income taxes on higher-income earners. According to the Congressional Budget Office, “once all those revenue streams are factored in, CBO has estimated that the law would actually reduce the federal deficit by $210 billion over the 2012-2021 period.” (reference number 4)  see Table One

Most of you have most likely seen the video of  Soledad O’brien shutting down the out right lies spewed by Gov. Sununu. She fact checked and utilize several sources to validate the falsehoods of the governor. Below is the video .( reference number 3) Soledad spreading the cloak of truth over the Romney campaign

The AARP who conducted a thorough analysis for its members,  actually praises the President’s Medicare plan. Some of their most significant statements include the following:

The health care law strengthens Medicare by protecting and improving your guaranteed benefits and cracking down on waste, fraud and inefficiency. It also identifies savings that will keep Medicare financially stable for 12 years longer than if the law hadn’t been passed.” The law protects any cuts to Medicare’s guaranteed benefits, which include doctor, hospital and rehabilitation services. This is true whether you have Original Medicare or a Medicare Advantage plan.”

As can be read above, the law prevents any cuts in the future to guaranteed benefits. (Reference 1,2,and 3) So how does Romney look into his constituents with a straight face and lie that the president is reducing benefits, and robbing them of their future health care. Easy, because he’s a psychopathic liar. He will do anything and say anything to get elected. And his surrogates simply fall right in the line as Gov. Sununu did and hold a straight face. Fortunately, not all of us are robotically programmed. You can read the entire AARP analysis by clicking on this link. The AARP health care analysis


Update: 8-22-2012

Newser hits Romey hard on Medicare falsehoods-8-22-2012

(Newser) – “Mitt Romney often promises to restore $716 billion in Medicare funding cut by the Affordable Care Act, but many experts say that pledge is, in the words of one economist, “both puzzling and bogus.” That’s because what Romney would be “restoring” wouldn’t be funds but costs, the New York Times explains. The ACA cut Medicare’s reimbursements to hospitals and doctors. Experts project that restoring them would send Medicare into insolvency by 2016 (rather than 2024 as currently projected), and cost seniors $342 a year in premiums and co-pays.”  MORE


More To Come


Republican states opt out of Medicaid


The anti-Medicaid, states that opted out as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision, are taking a page from Ayn Rand’s writings. She deplored charity and advocated selfishness. The link below is a more comprehensive explanation and analysis but we offer this brief overview.

Florida’s governor, Rick Scott opted out of the Medicaid expansion and will affect hundreds of thousands of people who are unable to receive healthcare. Sandra Pico, a Miami, Florida, resident who is the sole breadwinner of the family of three does not qualify because her $15,000 a year salary exceeds the $11,000 Medicaid eligibility requirements in the state of Florida. All of the states that are currently opted out of the Medicaid expansion have Republican governors and legislatures. Most of the states have different eligibility requirements for Medicaid but the lowest income requirements are, not surprisingly in states with Republican governors. For example, in Louisiana and Texas a family of three is  eligible if their annual income exceeds $5000.

Under the Obama plan, 7 million additional Americans would be eligible should the states participate in the program. According to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation analysis of Ryan’s 2011 budget plan, an additional 14 to 27,000,000 Americans would become an eligible even after a repeal of the health care act. Republican hate. The Ayn Rand crowd. The Republicans are right; this is the most important election of our generation. What are you doing?

Republican Hate- Medicaid

Learn more about Ayn Rand

No Truth to Medicare Cuts-Another Republican Lie

By Harmon Maven Brody July 12,2012


When the REpublicans claim that Obamacare takes $500 billion from Medicare, they
intend to scare seniors into thinking their benefits are being cut. There is no truth to this whatsoever.

That $500 billion is a cut in payments made to providers for fraudulent and unneccessary charges. In actuality it is a cut in the cost of Medical care. Medicare annually receives more federal money each year. There is no cut.

The LIE is a blatant attempt to SCARE and FOOL seniors into thinking that the Obamas Affordable Care ACt will hurt them rather that help them which it does with free preventive care and additional services.

There are real sources for this information. It is not half truth or inuendo. Check it out yourselves.

Fact Checking the GOP debate: $500 billion in cuts to Medicare? Wash Post

Florida bill SJR 2 creates exemptions from the Affordable Care Act

Rick Scott; you remember him: the man who ripped off Medicare, Medicaid, and a federal employees medical program and whose company, Columbia/HCA was fined $1.7 billion. The US Justice Department called it the largest government fraud settlement case in the history of the United States.  Scott was the founder and CEO of the healthcare giant. In 1997, Scott resigned under pressure from the board while the FBI was investigating scrupulous billing practices of the company.

In accordance with lawsuits filed by the Justice Department, Scott and other company executives offered financial incentives to doctors for patient referrals, which is a violation of federal law. Ten different fraud charges were identified by the justice Department Department with the doctors payments being one of them. The company was also charged with fourteen felonies, most of which occurred under Scott’s supervision.

John Schilling, an accountant for Scott’s company testified in court that two separate sets of books were maintained. One to show federal auditors and the other for internal purposes. Schilling also notes the company routinely overcharged medicare. Further, Schilling said, “He (Scott ) was driven by financial greed.” Knowing most of the facts, the people of Florida still elected Scott as governor.

Scott wants to deny people medicare under the Health Care Act with the aid of Republican gislators such as Ellyn Setnor Bogdanoff who voted the party line 100% of the time. Florida Gov., Rick Scott, with the help of Republican Legislatorsmay have the votes.  Especially legislators such as Ellyn Setnor Bogdanoff,who has no interest in protecting Florida voters when it comes to healthcare. Bogdanoff helped sponsor a bill, (SJR 2 ) authorizing exemptions from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. What’s significant about this bill is the fact that it is designed to protect insurance companies and not the consumer. Is Mrs. Bogdanoff more  has interested in the well-being of her constituents or of private insurance companies? You can preview the bill by going here. Exemptions Bogdanoff is running against Maris Sachs for the Senate seat in district 34.

Sachs will protect the rights of seniors and children and insure they receive proper health care. Beware of Bogdanoff.


Affordable Health Care Act-Fact Checking

This post attempts to include most of the statements made by various politicians after the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Affordable Care Act.

This first grouping is from PolitifFact:

Rick Scott – Florida Governor: A company with “20 employees” could go “out of business” because of health care law requirements to buy insurance. Rated blatantly wrong or “pants on fire.”

Rick Scott – Florida Governor:  The Medicaid expansion is “going to cost Florida $1.9 billion a year.”  Rated wrong and wildly overstated.

Rick Scott – Florida Governor: Says the health care law rations care, like systems in Canada and Great Britain. Rated wrong and simply empty rhetoric.

Mitt Romney –Obamacare … means that for up to 20 million Americans, they will lose the insurance they currently have, the insurance that they like and they want to keep.”  Rated incorrect.

Mitt Romney –”Obamacare adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt.” Rated incorrect

Rush Limbaugh –”Obamacare is . . . the largest tax increase in the history of the world.” Rated, pants on fire; a total lie.

United States Chamber of Commerce: “20 million people could lose their current coverage” … “including our senior citizens who are on Medicare.” Rated pants on fire; a total lie

United States Chamber of Commerce: “Seniors will see $500 billion in Medicare cuts to fund Obamacare.” Rated mostly false.

United States Chamber of Commerce: “Obamacare … will kill jobs across America.”  Rated totally false


From factcheck.org

Republican claims the affordable health care act will result in substantial job losses. Rated:  “The exaggerated Republican claim that the new health care law “kills jobs” was high on our list of the “Whoppers of 2011.” But the facts haven’t stopped Republicans and their allies from making the “job-killing” claim a major theme of their campaign 2012 TV ads.” factcheck

The Romney campaign asserts that Obama failed to live up to his promise to reduce health insurance premiums for families by $2500 a year. Factcheck.org rates this statement as four Pinocchios and totally false. They refer to it as a Romney whopper.

A Republican claim that the federal health care law taxes “heart attacks, sick puppies and even new babies” is a dog. Turns out it’s a reference to excise taxes on certain medical devices.

“The National Republican Congressional Committee crams a highlight reel of misleading claims about the health care law into a 90-second video that encourages viewers to sign an “I Want Repeal” petition. We’ve seen most of these before, but the claim about puppies and babies was new to us. And we found it takes more stretching than a puppy with fleas to make those claims hold up. Factcheck.org  Rated false.