Leaked Document Shows GOP Approach to ACA Replacement

Spare_change

Gold Member
Jun 27, 2011
8,690
1,293
280
Earlier in the month, House Speaker Paul Ryan told reporters that Republicans would soon introduce tangible legislation to uproot the failing Obamacare status quo and replace it with a better system. GOP leadership released an outline in mid-February that hinted at the approach they were planning to adopt -- and now a more detailed draft proposal has leaked into the press. With all the necessary caveats in place about how the document is by no means a finalized piece of legislation, it provides the most comprehensive and specific glimpse to date at Republicans' long-awaited Obamacare alternative. Writing at Commentary, Noah Rothman sees a lot to like for conservatives:

[This would-be] bill eliminates most of the onerous, market-distorting provisions contained within the Leviathan ACA. It eliminates many of the subsidies that reduce the incentives for those who are currently outside the labor force to remain there, and it kills the individual mandate to purchase insurance. Based on age, not income, the plan would establish tax credits to help uninsured patients afford private insurance plans.

The plan scales back or eliminates some of ObamaCare’s most burdensome tax provisions
, including Medicare surtax on wages and self-employment income. It eliminates federal Medicaid expansion by 2020, but preserves capped payments to states based on the number of enrollees in states that expanded Medicaid already. Most encouragingly, the plan includes grants to states that would allow them to experiment with programs designed to increase coverage rates or reduce premiums.


Then again, he argues, other elements appear to partially mimic or tweak Obamacare's existing provisions. Conservative healthcare wonk Avik Roy also offers a 'mixed verdict' analysis of the roadmap laid out in the leaked document. He notes that Republicans appear to have abandoned the flawed "repeal and delay" strategy, which would have rolled back large swaths of Obamacare via reconciliation, then punted the replacement piece to an undetermined later date. The problem with this idea was that major Obamacare regulations would still have stayed in place even after the law's (admittedly faulty) structure to keep the entire system from rapidly collapsing had been gutted. The resulting market disruptions would have been catastrophic. The introduction and installation of a sustainable alternative plan to supplant Obamacare, as opposed to just creating a yawning Obamacare-less void, is both politically necessary and much more responsible from a public policy perspective. The GOP plan returns regulatory decisions about what viable coverage plans must cover back to the states (an important departure from Obamacare's federally-driven mandate bonanza), and gives insurers a wider berth for charging younger consumers lower premiums than older ones. These reforms would help create a wider array of available coverage, including cheaper options, and would help stabilize the risk pools that Obamacare is ruining.

In place of Obamacare's federal marketplace and direct taxpayer subsidies, the GOP solution implements a regime of tax credits to assist Americans afford insurance plans. Roy argues that the way in which the draft GOP plan structures the credits is flawed, and also analyzes the proposed dollar amounts -- which range from $2,000 to $4,000 annually for most people. The proposal also entails critical reforms to Medicaid (through a form of flexible block-granting) and Health Savings Accounts (roughly doubling the amount of money individuals and families can save for medical expenses tax-free). It also pumps billions into a modernized version of high risk pools, under which states can innovate and invest to help cover the medical expenses of their most vulnerable citizens. The new law would still prohibit insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, so long as those people have maintained continuous coverage. This strongly incentivizes consumers to obtain coverage without imposing an individual mandate tax (which is repealed under this plan), and while disincentivizing people to wait until they develop a health problem or injury before finally enrolling (by permitting insurers to charge substantially more to people who seek to sign up after a coverage gap).
 
Cassidy-Collins, the GOP replacement plan that lets liberal states keep Obamacare, explained

EXCERPT:
"Two Republican senators are pitching an Affordable Care Act replacement that they hope will appeal to the law’s supporters.

States that like Obamacare, they argue, should get to keep it.

Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Susan Collins (R-ME) held a press conference Monday to roll out the Patient Freedom Act. They propose giving states three options: Keep Obamacare, switch to a different insurance expansion, or go forward with no coverage expansion at all.

“California and New York, you like Obamacare, you should keep it,” Cassidy said at the press conference. “It’s not for us to dictate.”

The Cassidy-Collins proposal is a sharp departure from the plans offered by House and Senate leadership, which would not let Obamacare continue in any form. Cassidy argues that this is a middle-way approach that might bridge Democrats and Republicans’ sharp divisions over Obamacare.

“At some point in this process, we will need a bill that can get to 60 votes,” Cassidy says. “Now you can say to a blue-state senator who is invested in supporting Obamacare, ‘You can keep it, but why force it on us?’”
 
Is this materially different from Paul Ryan's plan? I don't know yet.

If it isn't materially different from Ryan's plan, is this released document merely a "teething ring" tossed to squelch as much as possible the rancor that resulted from Trump saying "who knew it was this complicated?"
 

Forum List

Back
Top