First things first

The Republican/Tea Party Revolution of 2010 (inaugurated January 2011) has emboldened the right-but-wrong to attempt to repeal the Health Care Reform law. I understand their fear of change - or more accurately, their fear of losing power and wealth - but the right is on the wrong course.
Is PPACA flawed and in need of improvement? Yes. Certainly. And I hope to be able to address some of its flaws and suggest ways to improve it in future postings. But progress is not achieved by tearing apart each attempt brick by brick and starting over from scratch. Imagine if the Wright Bros. were governed by our current crop of legislators . . . they would have burned the Kitty Hawk to ashes and redesigned it from scratch because it didn't fly across the Atlantic on its first flight. The result in 2011 is that we would still be thrusting balsa-wood and paper contraptions into the sand dunes. As someone wisely said, perfection is the enemy of progress. Or something like that.
At the risk of being overly simplistic, let's assess PPACA vs. status quo on a very elementary basis. First, when looking for the best, most accurate and objective budgetary impact estimates of any act, including PPACA, should we look to the Democratic caucus, or the Republican caucus? Or should we look to the Congressional Budget Office? The answer is simple: the CBO. And how do we know that the CBO's figures are the most reliable? Because when the CBO's findings don't support the Democrats' rhetoric, the Democratics attack the CBO as unreliable. Then, when the CBO offends the Republicans with its statistics, the Republicans castigate the incompetence of the CBO. That should be evidence enough that only the CBO's numbers can be trusted.
Having discounted both parties' calculations as fatally flawed due to political gerry-rigging, we look to what the CBO says about PPACA vs. the status quo. And here is what the CBO has said: PPACA, while costing nearly a trillion dollars, will nevertheless reduce the budget deficit by $143 billion over the next ten years (for an in-depth discussion, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act#Deficit_impact).
On the other hand, if we repeal the health care reform law, the CBO estimates the deficit will increase by $145 billion in this decade and an additional $230 billion in the next (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2011/0107/Health-care-law-repeal-Why-would-it-increase-the-deficit).
Before we get caught up again in minutiae, let's realize that, either way, we're talking peanuts compared to what we must do to fix the budget deficit. Nevertheless, if Republicans are honest about cutting the deficit, then repeal is not the best road; instead, fine-tuning the law to further reduce spending is the way to go.
What will really challenge the Republican resolve, as well as uncover any political hypocrisy in the GOP's message, is whether the party will act on its mandate to significantly reduce deficit spending. Because there are only three places where a combination of spending cuts, entitlement reductions and increased taxation will amount to enough budget busting to avert the impending fiscal doom: (1) Social Security; (2) Medicare/Medicaid; and (3) military spending. Do we have the guts to really fix the problem?

But I thought you wanted to reduce spending, Mr. Boehner!

Maybe you haven't heard, but the majority party in the House of Representatives has already introduced a bill to repeal the Patient Protection and Access to Care Act (i.e., "Obamacare"). The very same week, the very same party changed House rules to require that any bill introduced to that legislative body must pay for every additional dollar of cost by cutting an existing dollar in the budget.
Except for the resolution to repeal PPACA. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office released a preliminary review of the bill (the CBO hasn't had time to do a full review yet), estimating that repeal of the health reform bill will add $230 billion to the federal budget deficit from 2012 to 2021 (cf. Robert Lowes, Medscape Medical News, Jan. 6, 2011).
Since the health care bill was projected by the CBO to reduce the deficit by $143 billion over 10 years, the true effect of repealing it approaches $370 billion.
So which is it, Speaker Boehner? Do you want to cut spending, or do you want to play politics with our health care? Because if you were serious about cutting spending, you would follow your own newly minted rule and dig up $230 billion on alternative budget cuts in order to repeal the health care reform bill.
Oh, wait a minute! This is politics. We don't have to be consistent, or rational, or for that matter truthful. Republicans are complaining that the "tax-and-spend" Democrats have run up the deficit to such heights that they are destroying our economy, not to mention the labor market. Then why do they introduce a bill entitled, "Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act (emphasis mine)" when, by the very act of repealing PPACA, the Republicans would increase the deficit even more, which by their own machinations would kill even more jobs?
Truth is the newly empowered Republicans are continuing to play cynical politics. It's an easy stand for them to take to assuage their Tea-Party upstarts, because the bill will never pass a Democratic-controlled Senate. And if by some miracle it did, President Obama would surely veto the bill.
I have a better suggestion. Keep PPACA, and begin to amend it brick by brick, introducing incremental improvements to what is in actuality NOT a wholesale restructuring of our health care system, but, in fact an incremental one. The truth is, ObamaCare is probably not drastic enough to save the sinking ship of American health care. But to repeal the only meaningful advance we have made in thirty years to fix the system is like drilling another hole in the bottom of a sinking ship.