Skip to main content

Trump, GOP Senators Suggest Simply Repealing Obamacare Without Replacement

With Republican lawmakers unable to reach a consensus on how to replace the Affordable Care Act, President Trump and some influential senators are now calling for a straightforward repeal of the law, with any replacement to come at some later date.

President Trump, as is his tendency, made his suggestion in an early morning Tweet, saying that if GOP senators can’t reach a deal on their current repeal-and-replace legislation, they should “immediately REPEAL, and then REPLACE at a later date!”:

Shortly after this remark, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky — who has decried the Senate bill as being “Obamacare Light” — claimed to have spoken to the President about this issue and that they are of a like mind about moving forward with simply repealing the 2010 healthcare law:

Nebraska’s Ben Sasse said this morning that he has written to the White House arguing for “maximum repeal, however much repeal we can do under these arcane reconciliation rules.”

In his letter, Sasse contends that it looks like his party “will either fail to pass any meaningful bill at all, or will instead pass a bill that looks to prop up many of the crumbling Obama care structures.”

The senator argues that if there is no way to get to 50 yes votes by July 10, “we should immediately vote again” on a 2015 repeal bill — introduced by Tom Price, the new Health and Human Services Secretary, when he was still in Congress. That bill made it all the way to President Obama’s desk before being vetoed in early 2016. The GOP did not have enough votes to overcome that veto.

What Would Repeal-Only Look Like?

If lawmakers were able to pass a clone version of that bill, what would that mean for Americans?

Among the key points of the vetoed Price legislation:
• Repealing the so-called “individual mandate” — the requirement that most people purchase some minimal form of qualifying healthcare coverage or face a financial penalty.
• Repealing the “employer mandate” — the requirement that larger employers provide qualifying coverage to their workers.
• Getting rid of subsidies for individual insurance policies purchased through state healthcare exchanges.
• Eliminating the 3.8% tax on investment earnings for individuals making at least $200,000 or married couples earning $250,000 combined.
• Eliminating the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which helps to pay for many state and local public health and disease prevention initiatives.
• Eliminating new taxes on medical devices manufacturers and insurers.
• Maintaining provisions that required insurers to let young adults stay on their parents’ insurance plans until age 26.
• Maintaining the prohibition against denying access or charging excessive premiums to Americans with pre-existing conditions.

A Dec. 2015 analysis of this bill by the Congressional Budget Office concluded that this legislation “would result in a less healthy population” in the individual insurance market, and “correspondingly higher average premiums.” The pain would be hardest felt in smaller states, where markets could become unstable “leading to very low to no participation by insurers and consumers.”

More recently, the CBO looked back at the Price legislation to estimate its impact on the number of Americans who would lose or go without coverage. According to that Jan. 2017 report, an additional 18 million people would likely lose or ditch their insurance within the first year of repeal. By 2026, that number would swell to 32 million — that’s 10 million more than the latest prediction for the current replacement bill being considered by the Senate.

Could A Straight Repeal Pass?

Anything is possible, and there are reportedly other hardline conservative senators who would line up to support a second chance at passing the Price bill. At the same time, with only a two-vote majority in the Senate, any bill would need strong backing by its more moderate members.

When the Senate voted on the Price bill in 2015, two Republicans — Sen. Mark Kirk (IL) and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine — voted against the measure, with no Democrats crossing party lines to vote yes. Kirk is no longer in the Senate, but there are other moderates who may have trouble selling their constituents on a full repeal.

Remember that the 2015 legislation — one of many repeal bills introduced since 2010 — was passed by Congress knowing full well that it would be vetoed by the White House and that it likely didn’t have the votes to override that veto. In fact, the House vote to override fell far short of the two-thirds majority needed.

If the Senate did decide to move forward with a strict repeal-only plan, knowing this time that there’s a very good chance the President would sign it, if all GOP lawmakers would feel comfortable passing a legislation that could leave so many Americans without insurance.


by Chris Morran via Consumerist

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Chrysler Deletes Its Dating Apps, Decides To Remain Single For Now

They say you can’t have a healthy relationship until you’re happy with yourself. That appears to be the new mantra for Fiat Chrysler: After several attempts to woo General Motors and more recently Volkswagen , the carmaker’s top executive says he plans to ditch his lovelorn ways to concentrate on his company’s bottom line.  Bloomberg reports that CEO Sergio Marchionne has turned his focus to eliminating FCA’s debt rather than eliminating its single status. Marchionne has set a goal of erasing FCA’s debt by 2019, the same year he’s set to retire. To do that, he says the company needs to do a little work on itself. “We need to be very careful that we don’t start unrealistic dreams about consolidation as we are on our way to achieve historically important results and a debt-free position,” Marchionne told investors at the carmaker’s annual meeting in Amsterdam, as reported by Bloomberg. “We are not at a point of time to discuss any alliance.” Yes, you heard that right: The man w...

Study Claims 43% Of “Wild” Salmon In Stores & Restaurants Isn’t Wild At All

That wild salmon entrée calling to you from the menu at dinner might not be all it’s advertised. In fact a new study released Wednesday found evidence of mislabeling in nearly half of all salmon sold in restaurants and grocery stores.  The study [ PDF ] from international environmental advocacy group, Oceana, analyzed 82 salmon samples from restaurants and grocery stores, finding that 43% of the products were mislabeled. DNA testing confirmed that 69% of the mislabeled product consisted of farmed Atlantic salmon being sold as wild-caught product. According to the report, consumers satisfying their salmon craving in restaurants are misled about 67% of the time, while those who buy their seafood in a grocery store are misled 20% of the time. “Americans might love salmon, but as our study reveals, they may be falling victim to a bait and switch,” Beth Lowell, senior campaign director at Oceana, said . “When consumers opt for wild-caught U.S. salmon, they don’t expect to get a far...

Introduction to Biology (IX Biology Notes Chapter 01)

Science: Our universe operates under certain principles. For understanding of these principles, the experiments are done and observations are made; on the basis of which logical conclusions are drawn. Such a study is called "Science". In brief science is the knowledge based on experiments and observations. Biology: The Scientific study of living organisms is called Biology. The word biology is derived from two Greek words "bios" meaning life and "logos" meaning thought, discourse, reasoning or study. It means that all aspects of life and every type of living organism are discussed in biology. Branches of Biology: Biology is divided into following branches: Morphology The study of form and structure of living organisms is called morphology. It can be further divided into following two parts: 1. The study of external parts of living organism is called external morphology. 2. The study of internal parts of living organism is calle...