Republicans unveil new ObamaCare replacement plan

Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Looks like they want to get rid of the mandate, continue to cover children under their parent's policy until 26, cover preexisting conditions, and provide better portability. It's about time they came up with something.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...obamacare-replacement-plan/?intcmp=latestnews

Republicans unveil new ObamaCare replacement plan

Congressional Republicans are unveiling what they say is a new plan to repeal and replace ObamaCare, but the ‘blueprint,’ as they call it, looks an awful lot like what’s been floated before.

The Patient Choice, Affordability, Responsibility and Empowerment – or CARE – Act was crafted by Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and House Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich.

The first bicameral proposal of the 114th Congress calls for the outright repeal of President Obama’s signature health care law, and with that, the individual mandate to buy insurance or pay a fine.

It provides for targeted tax credits to individuals and families up to 300 percent above the poverty line to encourage people to buy plans in the market place.

It also allows insurers to sell plans across state lines and caps the amount of monetary damages that can be awarded in medical malpractice litigation.

Like the Affordable Care Act, dependents are able to stay on their parents’ healthcare plans until they’re 26, and no one can be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions -- although this plan calls for a specific ‘continuous coverage’ protection where individuals moving from one plan to another cannot be denied.

Gone, however, are age-rating ratios banning insurance companies from charging older Americans more than three times what they charge younger individuals. The new federal baseline would be five-to-one, essentially lowering costs for younger, lower risk consumers.

To pay for it, Burr, Hatch and Upton propose taxing the value of health insurance plans above $30,000 a year as regular income.

If these proposals sound familiar it’s because most of them are. Many are based on an outline pitched last year by Burr, Hatch, and former Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.

“One of the reasons that you don't see massive changes is we thought we had a decent product last year based on feedback as we've talked with governors, with industry,” an aide familiar with the plan said. “A lot of industry frankly thinks this is a very durable sustainable, credible alternative from a market perspective, and they think it's operationally viable.”

Even if it’s viable don’t expect a vote -- in either chamber -- anytime soon. Aides are very quick to point out that this should not be hailed as the “GOP Plan.”

“It’s just one plan,” as one adviser put it, and more input from governors and legislators will be needed before anything moves forward. Even hearings haven’t yet been discussed.

Same old song and dance we've been seeing for years, critics say.

Still, pressure for viable alternatives is increasing.

There currently is a case about to come before the Supreme Court challenging ObamaCare’s subsidies for private insurance for people who don’t have access to it through their jobs. If that provision is struck down, millions of consumers could drop coverage.

“As soon as we get feedback we are going to keep updating our proposal because now there is a different sense of urgency being in the majority to try to put something together, especially as we are headed to 2017," one Republican aide said. “Not to mention what the Supreme Court may decide on June 30th.”

A larger bill will almost certainly wait until there is a new occupant in the White House.

“Let's all be realistic, the president, who the law is named after, he's not repealing his bill. So what we are doing is putting a very credible idea out there because what our bosses were sick and tired of hearing is the Republicans have no ideas," one aide said.

“Will this whole thing happen before 2017? I find that hard to believe, but we're going to prepare for 2017.”
 

Subyman

Moderator <br> VC&G Forum
Mar 18, 2005
7,876
32
86
I think ACA can be fixed, I'd hate to see the entire thing repealed. Repubs seem to want to go back to what we had, not much different in their plan from what we had pre-ACA.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
I think ACA can be fixed, I'd hate to see the entire thing repealed. Repubs seem to want to go back to what we had, not much different in their plan from what we had pre-ACA.
I like many things about ACA as well and this particular proposal addresses several of the most popular features. But the devil is in the details, so I'm going to withhold judgment for now.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,245
55,794
136
To be very clear, they do not want to end the pre-existing condition problem. What they are proposing would in fact reintroduce it in a serious way.

What they want is that if you have been continuously covered by health insurance your new health insurance provider can't perform medical underwriting on you. If you lose your health insurance for a few months because you lose your job or something, your next provider can medically underwrite you.

This basically means that if you ever lose your insurance, you're fucked.

Much of the remainder of their plan seems fairly reasonable, although in many cases not much different than the ACA. The pre-existing condition nonsense is insanely bad though.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
39,869
33,505
136
So remove the mandate and people who refuse coverage can still show up @hospital and be treated?
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
To be very clear, they do not want to end the pre-existing condition problem. What they are proposing would in fact reintroduce it in a serious way.

What they want is that if you have been continuously covered by health insurance your new health insurance provider can't perform medical underwriting on you. If you lose your health insurance for a few months because you lose your job or something, your next provider can medically underwrite you.

This basically means that if you ever lose your insurance, you're fucked.

Much of the remainder of their plan seems fairly reasonable, although in many cases not much different than the ACA. The pre-existing condition nonsense is insanely bad though.
I saw that as well...not optimum for sure, but I'm not sure how you can accomplish this without a mandate or by going to single payer universal health.
 
Last edited:

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,500
6
81
Single Payer Universal FTW
Like essentially all other first-world countries?

Why on Earth would we want to emulate other countries who pay half per-capita what we do every year, get better outcomes, and have no healthcare-expense-based bankruptcies? It simply must be better to go back to a system with wildly-increasing costs, an ever-increasing number of unisured Americans, an ever-increasing number of healthcare-expense-based bankruptcies, and lower life expectancies because . . . (wait for it) . . . it's the FREE MARKET!
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,245
55,794
136
I saw that as well...not optimum for sure, but I'm not sure how you can accomplish this without a mandate unless we go to universal health.

It just seems like such a huge step backwards. I don't know what percentage of Americans have some...say... two month period in their life where they don't have health insurance, but my thought is that number is high. I can't see anything resembling that making it into law.

As for the rest of the proposal a lot of it seems just fine to me and some parts may very well be an improvement over the ACA as it is now. This is actually something similar to what I expected to happen all along, which is that Republicans will make some modifications to the ACA at which point they will declare it "fixed" and then we can all start treating it like a normal law that can be refined/improved/whatever without it being a case where you either have to defend it as is or say it must be totally destroyed.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,736
17,387
136
I didn't hear anything about cost controls nor does it say anything about insurance waste through administrative costs.

Is this the same plan that also taxes employer provided plans as income? That'll be a nice tax raise on workers.

Is this the same plan that removes the requirement for a minimum of benefits insurance providers have to offer ?

Is this the same proposal that requires you to have continuous coverage otherwise insurance companies can deny you for pre existing conditions?

Is this the same plan that could allow for annual limits but keeps the ban on lifetime limits?

And lastly is this plan better than the ACA in that more people have insurance?

I'll let hayabusa chime in to criticize this in the same way he does the ACA.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
39,869
33,505
136
It also allows insurers to sell plans across state lines

So if you are an insurance co in GA why would you sell to someone in NY and have larger payouts in NYC hospitals/doctors.

If GA refuses to pay going rates in NY doctors/hospitals won't accept GA company.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
To be very clear, they do not want to end the pre-existing condition problem. What they are proposing would in fact reintroduce it in a serious way.

What they want is that if you have been continuously covered by health insurance your new health insurance provider can't perform medical underwriting on you. If you lose your health insurance for a few months because you lose your job or something, your next provider can medically underwrite you.

This basically means that if you ever lose your insurance, you're fucked.

Much of the remainder of their plan seems fairly reasonable, although in many cases not much different than the ACA. The pre-existing condition nonsense is insanely bad though.

As it should be. If you want to soften that by allowing annual open enrollment windows I'm fine with that. The idea that someone can not have insurance, then get it only after they find out they have a hugely expensive disease *and not be refused* is complete crap. Would you let someone wait to buy auto insurance until after they had an accident?
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
Like essentially all other first-world countries?

Why on Earth would we want to emulate other countries who pay half per-capita what we do every year, get better outcomes, and have no healthcare-expense-based bankruptcies? It simply must be better to go back to a system with wildly-increasing costs, an ever-increasing number of unisured Americans, an ever-increasing number of healthcare-expense-based bankruptcies, and lower life expectancies because . . . (wait for it) . . . it's the FREE MARKET!

according to the libs here, Europe is falling apart and the USA is doing better economically, so I guess if we want to copy failure we should do what Europe is doing right?
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
As it should be. If you want to soften that by allowing annual open enrollment windows I'm fine with that. The idea that someone can not have insurance, then get it only after they find out they have a hugely expensive disease *and not be refused* is complete crap. Would you let someone wait to buy auto insurance until after they had an accident?
Health insurance is expensive, and not everyone can afford it every month of her life.

I'm fine if one or three states want to try this out as an alternative to Obamacare. But if there's no must-issue then I don't see how it really helps much, and if there is must-issue but no mandate then I don't see how it can fund itself.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,736
17,387
136
As it should be. If you want to soften that by allowing annual open enrollment windows I'm fine with that. The idea that someone can not have insurance, then get it only after they find out they have a hugely expensive disease *and not be refused* is complete crap. Would you let someone wait to buy auto insurance until after they had an accident?

Hence the reason for the individual mandate.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
The limitation on malpractice lawsuits is imo terrible. I think raising the ratio for older Americans is the right thing to do. They are more wealthy than the young and use the system more.

But this plan seems like it could be done within modifying ACA.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,245
55,794
136
As it should be. If you want to soften that by allowing annual open enrollment windows I'm fine with that. The idea that someone can not have insurance, then get it only after they find out they have a hugely expensive disease *and not be refused* is complete crap. Would you let someone wait to buy auto insurance until after they had an accident?

Yeah, that's why the individual mandate exists. This is removing the individual mandate and replacing it with something much worse.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
Hence the reason for the individual mandate.

I understand that but don't really like it (and not for the reasons you think). I've always favored a government-subsidized catastrophic plan for all paid for by repeal of the employer health insurance tax break, coupled with enhanced HSAs and local primary care clinics for the poor. The idea of "universal" healthcare with the perks and coverages typically expected by middle class workers is IMHO neither financially realistic nor desirable since it masks the costs to the end patient and leads to over-consumption.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,245
55,794
136
The limitation on malpractice lawsuits is imo terrible. I think raising the ratio for older Americans is the right thing to do. They are more wealthy than the young and use the system more.

But this plan seems like it could be done within modifying ACA.

I agree, older Americans generally have higher earning potential than younger ones, and this could make sense. I also agree that this plan seems to be largely just tweaks to the ACA as it is, at least the parts that have a snowball's chance of passing.

I have never understood the obsession with tort 'reform'. The idea that if someone paralyzes you for life or whatever that your award should be capped at some arbitrary (and generally quite low) level seems nuts.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,736
17,387
136
I understand that but don't really like it (and not for the reasons you think). I've always favored a government-subsidized catastrophic plan for all paid for by repeal of the employer health insurance tax break, coupled with enhanced HSAs and local primary care clinics for the poor. The idea of "universal" healthcare with the perks and coverages typically expected by middle class workers is IMHO neither financially realistic nor desirable since it masks the costs to the end patient and leads to over-consumption.

That's why I prefer universal health care, everyone is covered, everyone, including businesses pay into the system, everyone benefits (except insurance companies, they wouldn't really be needed).
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,736
17,387
136
I agree, older Americans generally have higher earning potential than younger ones, and this could make sense. I also agree that this plan seems to be largely just tweaks to the ACA as it is, at least the parts that have a snowball's chance of passing.

I have never understood the obsession with tort 'reform'. The idea that if someone paralyzes you for life or whatever that your award should be capped at some arbitrary (and generally quite low) level seems nuts.

A simple fix in regards to tort reform is to simply have the loser of the case pay all costs. That would reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
That's why I prefer universal health care, everyone is covered, everyone, including businesses pay into the system, everyone benefits (except insurance companies, they wouldn't really be needed).

So you support the model where patients go to doctors every time they have a hangnail since it's "free" as their premiums are already a sunk cost? Works the same if you substitute "taxes" instead of premiums. Why you purposely want to create a Tragedy of the Commons situation completely baffles me.