Politico’s Jennifer Haberkorn is reporting that four Democrats who voted against health care in March, also voted in favor of the rules package to repeal the Affordable Care Act, suggesting that the GOP’s push to undermine reform will have a bipartisan flavor. Three of the members — Reps. Dan Boren (OK), Mike Ross (AR), and Mike McIntyre (NC) — are all part of the hyper-deficit-sensitive Blue Dog Caucus, who voted against the law in March because they were concerned about spending levels. The fourth, Larry Kissell (NC), objected to the Medicare cuts in the law.

For the Blue Dog members, the repeal vote is peculiar since it suggests that their concerns about the deficit bear an inverse relationship to the conclusions of the Congressional Budget Office. That is, when the CBO found that health reform would reduce the deficit by $143 billion over 10 years, they registered their complaints about potential deficit increases. When it reported that repeal would increase the deficit $230 billion, they signaled their support for eliminating the law. Here is how they described their opposition to reform in March of 2010:

- MIKE ROSS: “Therefore, one of my concerns throughout this entire debate has been the impact this legislation will have on future deficits. After careful review and thoughtful analysis, I am unconvinced this bill will adequately address the long-term trend of rising health care costs that burden our government and every Arkansas family.” [Press Statement, 3/21/2010]

- MIKE McINTYRE: “We simply cannot afford to create a new federal bureaucracy that costs nearly $1 trillion when our national debt is $12 trillion and there is no plan in place to address it. I will not vote for it.” [Press Statement, 3/19/2010]

- DAN BOREN: “For the last 18 months I have said repeatedly that the focus of Congress should be on job creation and getting our economy moving again; not on creating a brand new entitlement program that we simply cannot afford.” [Press Statement, 3/22/2010]

I’ve called and emailed the offices of the po-repeal Democrats to ask why they’re voting for repeal in light of the CBO’s deficit projections. I will update the post as their responses come in.

Just as House Republicans gear up to repeal the “job killing” Affordable Care Act, the Department of Labor is reporting that the U.S. economy added 103,000 jobs last month, pushing the jobless rate down to a 19-month low of 9.4 percent.

In fact, since President Obama signed health reform into law on March 23, 2010, the economy has created approximately a total of 1.1 million new jobs in the private sector. One-fifth of the new jobs — over 200,000 — have been in the health care industry. Nevertheless, Republicans have spent the week decrying health reform as “job killing” legislation. Watch a compilation:

Aside from the fact that increasing access to health services will create thousands of jobs in the health care sector, Harvard economist David Cutler argues in a new paper released this morning that repealing the health law would reverse these gains and could destroy 250,000 to 400,000 jobs annually over the next decade. Eliminating the law would increase health care costs and cause employers to reduce wages and cut jobs for those employees who already receive minimum wage or are in fixed contracts. From the report:

Figure 3 shows the net impact of repealing health reform on total employment. The baseline estimates show that 250,000 jobs will be lost annually if health reform is repealed. Annual job losses would average 400,000 using the greater estimate of 1.5 percentage point cost increases annually resulting from repeal.

Employers may be anxious about some of the new requirements, but many are already benefiting from the law. A growing number of employers are taking advantage of the tax credit that allows businesses with fewer than 25 workers and average wages under $50,000 to deduct up to 35% of the cost of the premiums they provide for their employees and many are receiving money from the law’s reinsurance program, which assists employers with retiree health costs. In 2014, small businesses will be able to use the new health insurance exchanges to pool resources and lower costs by covering their workers through a larger risk pool. All this would free up dollars that could then be used for job creation.

As Steve Pearlstein points out, “what’s particularly noteworthy about this fixation with ‘job killing’ is that it stands in such contrast to the complete lack of concern about policies that kill people rather than jobs.” “Repealing health-care reform, for instance, would inevitably lead to thousands of unnecessary deaths each year because of an inability to get medical care,” he says. “There is an unmistakable redbaiting quality to the “job-killing” rhetoric, a throwback to the McCarthy era.”

Last night, Republicans demonstrated their commitment to preserving the rights of the minority party by approving a rule that would prohibit Democrats from offering any significant amendments to H.R. 2, the GOP’s Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act and allows for just seven hours of debate on the floor. Twenty-five democrats offered at least 30 amendments aimed at preserving such popular consumer protections as closing the Medicare Part D doughnut hole, preventing insurers from discriminating against individuals with pre-existing conditions and charging women more than men for the same amount of coverage. Republicans insisted that they supported these measures but argued that they had to prevent Democrats from bringing them up on the House floor because they wanted to allow the committee chairman with jurisdiction over health care to consider these amendments in the process of drafting a new bill.

“We don’t want to do anything to undermine women’s rights and we are absolutely committed to that,” Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-CA) said in response to a Democratic amendment preserving a provision in the law that prohibits sex discrimination in insurance coverage. “This will be one of those issues that we hope very much gets a full hearing and consideration and I can assure you that it will…I’m not going to be voting ‘no’ against women’s rights. I’m going to be voting yes to make sure the committee process has an opportunity to address this,” he explained. Dreier also offered a separate amendment — H.R. 9 — designed to assuage Democrats’ concerns about losing the protections. It instructs the committees of jurisdiction to report a bill to the House which will “foster economic growth and private sector job creation by eliminating job-killing policies and regulations.” It does not specifically address protections for women.

Ironically, Dreier’s rule also contradicts his argument from earlier this year, when he urged then Rules Committee Chair Louise Slaughter to hold an open rule that would allow for Republican amendments. “I think what we witnessed here underscores the need for an open rule and a debate on the House floor,” he told her.

Last night, he assured Democrats that repealing the entire health care law without an open debate process would allow for greater debate in the future. “I believe all of you have come here with very thoughtful proposals,” Drier told the Democrats who testified before the committee. “We believe, as this measure is going to be before us that nobody wants to throw the baby out with the bath water…I can assure you that having talking with the individual committee chairmen, there is a very strong commitment to your right to discuss and fully fully fully debate the proposals that you have and to have a vote.”

The Committee did allow one Democratic amendment from Rep. Jim Matheson, which would “instruct the House committees to include a permanent fix for the Sustainable Growth Rate in their reform alternatives. Democrats will also be able to offer a motion to recommit on the repeal measure.”