A trio of Senate Republicans on Monday introduced their plan to replace Obamacare with a new system that is built largely around making individuals responsible for a higher portion of their health care costs.
GOP leadership is still mired in a years-long tug-of-war between offering an Obamacare alternative and throwing stones from the sidelines. A plan makes the party look serious about health care policy, but putting proposals on paper carries its own risks because in health care, there are trade-offs to everything.
That debate notwithstanding, three Republicans with long backgrounds in health care policy — Sens. Orrin Hatch, Richard Burr, and Tom Coburn — have put together a framework they say should take the place of Obamacare if a Republican president and Congress were to repeal the law after the 2016 elections.
In essence, the plan attempts to lower health care costs by making people shoulder a greater share of those costs — or “sensitizing” consumers to the actual cost of health care, as Senate aides put it in a meeting with reporters on Monday.
Most people don’t recognize how much their employer contributes to their health care plan and don’t see the costs the insurance company covers: If people are spending more of their own money, many conservatives argue, they’ll be smarter consumers. Overall costs will come down, the argument goes, if consumers have more “skin in the game.”
Here’s how the latest plan would go about making that shift:
Many people with employer-based health insurance would pay more.
About 85 percent of Americans get health benefits through their job. Those health care benefits have two kinds of tax protections. First, the employer can deduct its costs. Second, the employees’ share of their premiums comes out of their paychecks before taxes are taken out. The GOP plan would cap that exclusion, so that only 65 percent of the average plan’s costs would be tax-exempt.
If your plan is in line with the average, you’d pay taxes on 35 percent of your premium. If it’s above average, you’d pay taxes on more. If it’s below average, you’d pay taxes on less. The idea is to make consumers more aware of how much their health care plan costs (by making them pay part of it), so that employees will go to their bosses and ask for cheaper plans.
Some people with preexisting conditions would pay more.
Obamacare requires insurers to cover people with preexisting conditions. The GOP plan would extend that requirement only to people who have had continuous coverage. So, if you lost your job and immediately bought insurance on your own, you’d be protected. If you let your coverage lapse, you’d have to pay more because of your preexisting condition.
This is, in essence, a replacement for Obamacare’s individual mandate. Rather than directly fining people who don’t buy insurance, Republicans would allow insurance companies to charge those people more. Both policies aim to create a financial incentive for people to remain covered. The key difference is that young, healthy people will primarily be the ones paying the penalty under Obamacare, while the GOP version is aimed at people who are unhealthy.
People would move from Medicaid to private insurance.
Obamacare gives states the option of expanding Medicaid eligibility. The GOP plan would repeal the expansion and also narrow the field of people who receive Medicaid. The Medicaid proposal is what’s known in wonkese as a “per capita cap” — in short, restructuring Medicaid financing to ensure it covers certain populations in each state. In this vision, the program would primarily serve mothers, pregnant women, and the disabled. Other low-income people would likely move instead to private insurance.
The plan replaces Obamacare’s tax subsidies.
Obamacare offers tax credits to help people afford their insurance premiums if they buy insurance on their own, rather than getting it through an employer. The GOP plan does, too, but the credits are smaller. Under Obamacare, subsidies are available to people whose incomes are up to four times higher than the poverty line. The GOP would roll them back to three times the poverty line.
Obamacare’s subsidies are pegged to the cost of a typical insurance plan; under the GOP proposal, it’s a fixed dollar amount. Under Obamacare, the size of your particular subsidy changes based on your income (poorer consumers get a bigger subsidy). Under the GOP plan, it slides based on age. (Every individual between 18 and 34 gets a $1,650 tax credit, no matter how much money he or she makes, if these individuals don’t get coverage through an employer.)
Most of Obamacare’s mandates/consumer protections would go away.
Depending on your perspective, Obamacare either offers consumers the peace of mind that their insurance will cover them when they need it, or imposes costly new benefits that consumers may not want. However you see those policies, they’d go away.
Hatch, Burr, and Coburn would repeal the provision requiring insurance companies to cover certain benefits, including preventive care. They would let insurers reinstate annual caps on the benefits they’ll pay out, which Obamacare eliminated. And most restrictions on how insurers set their premiums — say, prohibiting them from charging women more than men — would vanish.
The only mandate that would remain is a ban on lifetime limits. Republicans believe that removing coverage mandates would bring down the cost of insurance so that consumers’ dollars — and their tax credits — would go further.
What We're Following See More »
Foreign Policy takes a look at the future of mining the estimated "100,000 near-Earth objects—including asteroids and comets—in the neighborhood of our planet. Some of these NEOs, as they’re called, are small. Others are substantial and potentially packed full of water and various important minerals, such as nickel, cobalt, and iron. One day, advocates believe, those objects will be tapped by variations on the equipment used in the coal mines of Kentucky or in the diamond mines of Africa. And for immense gain: According to industry experts, the contents of a single asteroid could be worth trillions of dollars." But the technology to get us there is only the first step. Experts say "a multinational body might emerge" to manage rights to NEOs, as well as a body of law, including an international court.
Not to be outdone by Jeffrey Goldberg's recent piece in The Atlantic about President Obama's foreign policy, the New York Times Magazine checks in with a longread on the president's economic legacy. In it, Obama is cognizant that the economic reality--73 straight months of growth--isn't matched by public perceptions. Some of that, he says, is due to a constant drumbeat from the right that "that denies any progress." But he also accepts some blame himself. “I mean, the truth of the matter is that if we had been able to more effectively communicate all the steps we had taken to the swing voter,” he said, “then we might have maintained a majority in the House or the Senate.”
Ronald Reagan's children and political allies took to the media and Twitter this week to chide funnyman Will Ferrell for his plans to play a dementia-addled Reagan in his second term in a new comedy entitled Reagan. In an open letter, Reagan's daughter Patti Davis tells Ferrell, who's also a producer on the movie, “Perhaps for your comedy you would like to visit some dementia facilities. I have—I didn’t find anything comedic there, and my hope would be that if you’re a decent human being, you wouldn’t either.” Michael Reagan, the president's son, tweeted, "What an Outrag....Alzheimers is not joke...It kills..You should be ashamed all of you." And former Rep. Joe Walsh called it an example of "Hollywood taking a shot at conservatives again."
In a sign that she’s ready to put a longer-than-expected primary battle behind her, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton (D) is no longer going on the air in upcoming primary states. “Team Clinton hasn’t spent a single cent in … California, Indiana, Kentucky, Oregon and West Virginia, while” Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) “campaign has spent a little more than $1 million in those same states.” Meanwhile, Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Sanders’ "lone backer in the Senate, said the candidate should end his presidential campaign if he’s losing to Hillary Clinton after the primary season concludes in June, breaking sharply with the candidate who is vowing to take his insurgent bid to the party convention in Philadelphia.”
The team behind the bestselling "Clinton Cash"—author Peter Schweizer and Breitbart's Stephen Bannon—is turning the book into a movie that will have its U.S. premiere just before the Democratic National Convention this summer. The film will get its global debut "next month in Cannes, France, during the Cannes Film Festival. (The movie is not a part of the festival, but will be shown at a screening arranged for distributors)." Bloomberg has a trailer up, pointing out that it's "less Ken Burns than Jerry Bruckheimer, featuring blood-drenched money, radical madrassas, and ominous footage of the Clintons."