Republican Alternative to Obamacare Relies on Repeal

Rep. John Fleming, R-La., once operated 30 Subway restaurants and had a stake in 130 UPS stores, from Mississippi to Texas.
National Journal
Clara Ritger and Sophie Novack
Add to Briefcase
Clara Ritger Sophie Novack
Sept. 22, 2013, 8:50 a.m.

Des­pite passing le­gis­la­tion in the House on Fri­day to de­fund the Af­ford­able Care Act, Re­pub­lic­ans aren’t com­pletely op­posed to health care re­form.

Some are say­ing the Obama­care re­peal ef­fort must be ac­com­pan­ied by a re­place­ment pro­pos­al. Rep. Dar­rell Issa, R-Cal­if., said last week he wouldn’t re­peal “without vi­able re­place­ments for many of the things that the Af­ford­able Care Act chose to do.”

That’s why the Re­pub­lic­an Study Com­mit­tee in the House last week un­veiled the Amer­ic­an Health Care Re­form Act, a plan de­signed to re­peal Obama­care and re­place it with “mar­ket-based solu­tions.”

It’s not the first ACA al­tern­at­ive the GOP has pro­duced. In June, Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga. in­tro­duced the Em­power­ing Pa­tients First Act. It would provide in­sur­ance-premi­um tax cred­its based on in­come, sim­il­ar to the ACA, but wouldn’t out­law dis­crim­in­a­tion against people with preex­ist­ing con­di­tions. It has been re­ferred to com­mit­tee.

If the le­gis­la­tion sounds fa­mil­i­ar, it’s be­cause Price sponsored it in the last two Con­gresses. It did not make it out of com­mit­tee in either ses­sion.

The House GOP’s latest plan is an om­ni­bus pack­age con­tain­ing meas­ures that failed to gain trac­tion in the past. It has about 30 co­spon­sors. But a ma­jor stum­bling block is that the bill is not draf­ted as a re­form of the cur­rent law; it de­pends on a re­peal that is go­ing nowhere in the Sen­ate.

“Obama­care is not fix­able or re­par­able,” said Rep. John Flem­ing, R-La. who worked with the RSC on the bill. “It’s kind of like a sky­scraper that was built on a ter­rible found­a­tion. You would have to tear it down and start over.”

Re­pub­lic­an Study Com­mit­tee Chair­man Steve Scal­ise, R-La., called the bill a 180-de­gree turn from Obama­care. It would of­fer stand­ard­ized tax de­duc­tions across in­come levels, while the ACA provides tax cred­its on a slid­ing scale, de­pend­ing on age and in­come. Un­der the GOP plan, every­one would be giv­en the same in­come- or payroll-tax de­duc­tion: $7,500 for in­di­vidu­als and $20,000 for fam­il­ies. For low-in­come tax­pay­ers, the de­duc­tion would be up to the amount of their in­come taxes or payroll taxes owed.

The GOP plan would use the cur­rent in­di­vidu­al mar­ket but al­low con­sumers to pur­chase in­sur­ance across state lines. It also would al­low small busi­nesses to pool to­geth­er to lower their risk and re­duce in­sur­ance costs.

The ACA cre­ates a sep­ar­ate mar­ket­place — the ex­change — where in­di­vidu­als are able to shop around for the best deal on cov­er­age. However, in­surers can opt out of par­ti­cip­at­ing in the ACA ex­changes and only choose to serve the private mar­ket, which in some states has res­ul­ted in less com­pet­i­tion than in­ten­ded.

The plans also dif­fer in their treat­ment of low-in­come in­di­vidu­als and those with preex­ist­ing con­di­tions. Un­der the Re­pub­lic­an plan, in­di­vidu­als not cur­rently on Medi­caid or Medi­care would be buy­ing their in­sur­ance on the ex­ist­ing in­di­vidu­al mar­ket. The GOP be­lief is that mar­ket com­pet­i­tion would drive premi­um costs down so there are no pro­tec­tions in place for lower-in­come in­di­vidu­als. While the ACA of­fers states the chance to ex­pand Medi­caid and provides high­er sub­sidies for lower-in­come in­di­vidu­als, un­der the GOP plan, those in­di­vidu­als would rely on their stand­ard­ized tax de­duc­tions.

The Re­pub­lic­an plan, like the ACA, provides some pro­tec­tions for people with preex­ist­ing con­di­tions. But un­like the ACA, which sends these in­di­vidu­als to the ex­change, the GOP plan re­in­states the state high-risk pools and ex­pands fed­er­al sup­port to $25 bil­lion over 10 years, while cap­ping their premi­ums at 200 per­cent of the av­er­age premi­um in the state.

Re­pub­lic­ans who worked on the bill said their pro­posed struc­tur­al changes ad­dress what they see as the biggest prob­lem in the Amer­ic­an health care sys­tem: costs. Among the pro­vi­sions are a cap to the total dam­ages for med­ic­al li­ab­il­ity for doc­tors and a re­peal to the fed­er­al an­ti­trust ex­emp­tion for health in­surers in an ef­fort to break up mono­pol­ies and in­crease com­pet­i­tion in the mar­ket.

To ap­pease con­ser­vat­ives, the GOP bill elim­in­ates tax in­creases, which in the ACA fund the sub­sidies that make cov­er­age af­ford­able for low-in­come Amer­ic­ans. Ac­cord­ing to Rep. Phil Roe, R-Tenn., Scal­ise in­sisted that “you can’t have any man­dates in this bill. You can’t raise taxes. You’ve got to re­form the tax code, but there can’t be any sub­sidies in­volved.”

“That’s pretty lim­ited in what we can do,” Roe ad­ded. “I think with­in those para­met­ers, we came up with a pretty good bill.”

What We're Following See More »
“KNOWINGLY AND INTENTIONALLY”
Inspector General Report Found McCabe Lied To Investigators
3 hours ago
THE LATEST

"The Justice Department inspector general referred its finding that former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe repeatedly misled investigators who were examining a media disclosure to the top federal prosecutor in D.C. to determine whether McCabe should be charged with a crime." The referral occurred "after the inspector general concluded McCabe had lied to investigators or his own boss, then-FBI Director James B. Comey, on four occasions, three of them under oath." The referral does "not necessarily mean McCabe will be charge with a crime ... although the report alleged that one of McCabe’s lies 'was done knowingly and intentionally.'"

Source:
GOP APPOINTEES RULE AGAINST TRUMP
Court Rules Against Policy Punishing Sanctuary Cities
3 hours ago
THE LATEST

A federal appeals court in Chicago "upheld a nationwide injunction against making federal grant funding contingent on cooperation with immigration enforcement." The three Republican appointees ruled that the Trump administration "exceeded its legal authority in trying to implement the new conditions without approval from Congress ... One judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals panel, Reagan appointee Daniel Manion, said he would narrow the injunction solely to protect Chicago. However, the two other judges assigned to the case said the nationwide injunction appeared to be justified."

Source:
BUT PLEDGES TO HAVE A VOTE
Grassley Delays Markup of Protect-Mueller Bill
7 hours ago
THE LATEST

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley "decided Thursday to delay markup" on a bill to protect Special Counsel Robert Mueller until next week. But he remains steadfast in his support for a committee vote, despite Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's "pledge to kill it" if it gets to the floor.

Source:
ARMISTICE MAY BECOME PEACE AGREEMENT
North Korea Looking for Denuclearization of Peninsula
9 hours ago
THE LATEST

North Korea has expressed its commitment to 'complete denuclearisation' of the Korean peninsula and is not seeking conditions, South Korean President Moon Jae-in said on Thursday. ... South Korea announced on Wednesday that it is considering how to change a decades-old armistice with North Korea into a peace agreement as it prepares for the North-South summit this month." The leaders of the respective countries are also expected to connect a phone line so they can communicate directly.

Source:
NO IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT DUTIES
Deal Reached to Send California National Guard to Border
9 hours ago
THE LATEST

"California reached an agreement with the federal government that the state’s National Guard troops will deploy to the border to focus on fighting transnational gangs as well as drug and gun smugglers, Gov. Jerry Brown said. ... Brown said Wednesday he secured federal funding for terms similar to those outlined in last week’s proposed contract: The Guard cannot handle custody duties for anyone accused of immigration violations, build border barriers or have anything to do with immigration enforcement."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login