Rubio Introduces Bill to Prevent Obamacare ‘Bailout’

WASHINGTON, DC - MARCH 22: U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) talks to reporters on Capitol Hill March 22, 2013 in Washington, DC. The Senate is scheduled to vote on amendments to the budget resolution on Friday afternoon and into the evening. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
National Journal
Sophie Novack
Add to Briefcase
Sophie Novack
Nov. 19, 2013, 4:21 p.m.

Sen. Marco Ru­bio, R-Fla., in­tro­duced le­gis­la­tion Tues­day to re­peal a less­er-known Obama­care pro­vi­sion called “risk cor­ridors” that pro­tects in­sur­ance com­pan­ies from po­ten­tial un­ex­pec­ted changes in mar­ket­place com­pos­i­tion.

The bill is a not-so-subtle at­tack on the health care law, as its im­ple­ment­a­tion would cause ser­i­ous dam­age to the in­sur­ance ex­changes.

The risk-cor­ridors pro­vi­sion is es­sen­tially a safety net for in­surers dur­ing the first three years of the law’s im­ple­ment­a­tion, de­signed to pro­tect the mar­ket­place as a whole if more ex­pens­ive pa­tients sign up than an­ti­cip­ated. In­sur­ance com­pan­ies set cost es­tim­ates ahead of time. If costs end up be­ing high­er, the gov­ern­ment pays part of the dif­fer­ence; if costs are lower, the in­sur­ance com­pany pays the gov­ern­ment.

Ru­bio’s bill, which he dubbed the Obama­care Bail­out Pre­ven­tion Act, would elim­in­ate risk cor­ridors al­to­geth­er.

“[The bill] will en­sure the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion doesn’t have un­ac­count­able blank-check-writ­ing au­thor­ity to bail out in­sur­ance com­pan­ies at the ex­pense of tax­pay­ers,” Alex Con­ant, a spokes­man for Ru­bio, wrote in an email. “Ru­bio’s bill will fully re­peal the risk cor­ridor pro­vi­sion in Obama­care, pre­vent­ing a bail­out un­der the ex­ist­ing risk cor­ridor pro­vi­sion of Obama­care.”

The risk-cor­ridors pro­vi­sion has at­trac­ted more at­ten­tion re­cently, fol­low­ing the an­nounce­ment of Pres­id­ent Obama’s in­sur­ance can­cel­la­tion ‘fix,’ which would al­low in­surers to ex­tend policies that do not com­ply with the Af­ford­able Care Act for an­oth­er year.

“When Obama­care was de­bated and passed in 2009 and 2010, none of its pro­ponents, in­clud­ing the pres­id­ent, told the Amer­ic­an people that the law gran­ted the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment the au­thor­ity to bail out in­sur­ance com­pan­ies at the ex­pense of tax­pay­ers,” Ru­bio wrote in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journ­al on Tues­day. “But now their dirty little secret is out, and it should be wiped out from the law.”

However, the risk-cor­ridors pro­vi­sion is im­port­ant for avoid­ing the so-called “death spir­al” of high costs and low par­ti­cip­a­tion that could jeop­ard­ize the law. A lack of risk pro­tec­tion could cause in­surers to stop par­ti­cip­at­ing in the ex­changes, or raise their premi­um rates.

The pres­id­ent has already told in­surers that the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s as­sist­ance for them will be lim­ited.

The pro­posed le­gis­la­tion is sure to at­tract some Re­pub­lic­an sup­port, and has already got­ten the back­ing of nu­mer­ous con­ser­vat­ive or­gan­iz­a­tions, in­clud­ing Freedom­Works, Her­it­age Ac­tion, and Amer­ic­ans for Tax Re­form.

The bill is co­sponsored by Sens. Saxby Cham­b­liss, R-Ga.; James In­hofe, R-Okla.; Mike Lee, R-Utah; Mitch Mc­Con­nell, R-Ky.; Rand Paul, R-Ky.; and Dav­id Vit­ter, R-La.

What We're Following See More »
NEVER TRUMP
USA Today Weighs in on Presidential Race for First Time Ever
2 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."

Source:
COMMISSIONERS NEED TO DELIBERATE MORE
FCC Pushes Vote on Set-Top Boxes
2 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Federal regulators on Thursday delayed a vote on a proposal to reshape the television market by freeing consumers from cable box rentals, putting into doubt a plan that has pitted technology companies against cable television providers. ... The proposal will still be considered for a future vote. But Tom Wheeler, chairman of the F.C.C., said commissioners needed more discussions."

Source:
UNTIL DEC. 9, ANYWAY
Obama Signs Bill to Fund Government
7 hours ago
THE LATEST
REDSKINS IMPLICATIONS
SCOTUS to Hear Case on Offensive Trademarks
8 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

"The Supreme Court is taking up a First Amendment clash over the government’s refusal to register offensive trademarks, a case that could affect the Washington Redskins in their legal fight over the team name. The justices agreed Thursday to hear a dispute involving an Asian-American rock band called the Slants, but they did not act on a separate request to hear the higher-profile Redskins case at the same time." Still, any precedent set by the case could have ramifications for the Washington football team.

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Bannon Still Collecting Royalties from ‘Seinfeld’
9 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The Hollywood Reporter takes a look at a little-known intersection of politics and entertainment, in which Trump campaign CEO Steve Bannon is still raking in residuals from Seinfeld. Here's the digest version: When Seinfeld was in its infancy, Ted Turner was in the process of acquiring its production company, Castle Rock, but he was under-capitalized. Bannon's fledgling media company put up the remaining funds, and he agreed to "participation rights" instead of a fee. "Seinfeld has reaped more than $3 billion in its post-network afterlife through syndication deals." Meanwhile, Bannon is "still cashing checks from Seinfeld, and observers say he has made nearly 25 times more off the Castle Rock deal than he had anticipated."

Source:
×