Jackstraw
Footballguy
Looks very similar to Obamacare in many respects. This article discusses it in some detail. It addresses the big tax increase in the plan on employer contributions to employee health plans. As I understand it that has already been stripped out of the bill which I assume makes it a big deficit creator.
I was already anxious to see the OMB score the plan. I can only assume taking the primary revenue generator out of the plan makes it pretty ugly. Anyway the article explains the plan in great detail. Turns out actually governing is harder than it looks. Probably should have stayed on the sidleines flinging poo. Going to post half of it because it is so long. It actually gets worse at the end tho.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/opinion/comparing-obamacare-to-its-alternative.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
FROM the moment the ink dried on March 23, 2010, Republicans said they intended to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act. They have voted more than 40 times to wipe the law from the books. But Republicans have never gotten around to describing, in detail, the set of policies they believe should replace Obamacare. That is, until yesterday.
After nearly four years, we finally have a Republican counterproposal: the Patient Choice, Affordability, Responsibility and Empowerment (or Patient CARE) Act.
Senators Tom Coburn, Richard Burr and Orrin Hatch deserve credit for developing this plan. Putting together a proposal to reform the American health care system is hard and politically courageous. And while it is lacking in important details, this plan contains some interesting ideas that might have enabled bipartisan compromises had they been offered in 2009, when I was a health care adviser to the Obama administration and the Affordable Care Act was being debated. For instance, the plan would shift many low-income adults from Medicaid to subsidized private insurance. There are some Democrats who could certainly have supported such a proposal, if it had been offered as part of a deal to enact a bipartisan bill.
Despite all the heated rhetoric from Republicans about Obamacare laying ruin to America, the plan would actually keep some of the law’s key provisions. It would preserve some subsidies for lower-income people to buy private insurance, though it would change the way they are calculated. Those $700 billion worth of Medicare savings Mitt Romney denounced during the 2012 campaign? Republicans would keep them. Allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ plan until age 26? Republicans would keep that, too. And the ban on lifetime insurance caps, so people with very expensive diseases don’t lose insurance? Republicans wouldn’t touch it.
But in other crucial ways, the Republican plan is different. First, Obamacare’s absolute ban on withholding coverage from people with pre-existing conditions would be rolled back. Those who remained continuously insured would stay protected, so they couldn’t be charged higher rates or be excluded entirely. But if their insurance lapsed, health insurance companies could charge more or refuse to cover them.
Second, it would shrink the Medicaid expansion. Pregnant women, children and families below the poverty line would still be eligible, but childless adults would not. States would be given a fixed amount per person enrolled in Medicaid to reduce spending.
Third, the Republicans would provide tax credits for people to buy insurance, but only for families earning up to $70,650 per year. (The Affordable Care Act’s subsidies go to families earning up to $94,200.) And employees of large companies, even if those companies did not offer health insurance, would be exempt, regardless of income.
The largest difference is in cost control. Currently, employer-sponsored health insurance is tax free; the Republican plan would make employees pay income tax on at least 35 percent of what their company pays for their plan. The idea is to make patients pay more for their coverage, giving them an incentive to choose cheaper health insurance plans with more deductibles and co-payments, which, in turn, would encourage them to shop around for cheaper tests and treatments and forgo unnecessary ones.
On a more individual level, this is what the Republican plan means: If you are one of the 150 million Americans who get their health insurance through an employer-sponsored plan, get ready for a big tax increase. For a family in the 28 percent tax bracket (earning around $150,000 per year), according to my calculations, it would add up to about $1,470 per year.
I was already anxious to see the OMB score the plan. I can only assume taking the primary revenue generator out of the plan makes it pretty ugly. Anyway the article explains the plan in great detail. Turns out actually governing is harder than it looks. Probably should have stayed on the sidleines flinging poo. Going to post half of it because it is so long. It actually gets worse at the end tho.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/29/opinion/comparing-obamacare-to-its-alternative.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
FROM the moment the ink dried on March 23, 2010, Republicans said they intended to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act. They have voted more than 40 times to wipe the law from the books. But Republicans have never gotten around to describing, in detail, the set of policies they believe should replace Obamacare. That is, until yesterday.
After nearly four years, we finally have a Republican counterproposal: the Patient Choice, Affordability, Responsibility and Empowerment (or Patient CARE) Act.
Senators Tom Coburn, Richard Burr and Orrin Hatch deserve credit for developing this plan. Putting together a proposal to reform the American health care system is hard and politically courageous. And while it is lacking in important details, this plan contains some interesting ideas that might have enabled bipartisan compromises had they been offered in 2009, when I was a health care adviser to the Obama administration and the Affordable Care Act was being debated. For instance, the plan would shift many low-income adults from Medicaid to subsidized private insurance. There are some Democrats who could certainly have supported such a proposal, if it had been offered as part of a deal to enact a bipartisan bill.
Despite all the heated rhetoric from Republicans about Obamacare laying ruin to America, the plan would actually keep some of the law’s key provisions. It would preserve some subsidies for lower-income people to buy private insurance, though it would change the way they are calculated. Those $700 billion worth of Medicare savings Mitt Romney denounced during the 2012 campaign? Republicans would keep them. Allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ plan until age 26? Republicans would keep that, too. And the ban on lifetime insurance caps, so people with very expensive diseases don’t lose insurance? Republicans wouldn’t touch it.
But in other crucial ways, the Republican plan is different. First, Obamacare’s absolute ban on withholding coverage from people with pre-existing conditions would be rolled back. Those who remained continuously insured would stay protected, so they couldn’t be charged higher rates or be excluded entirely. But if their insurance lapsed, health insurance companies could charge more or refuse to cover them.
Second, it would shrink the Medicaid expansion. Pregnant women, children and families below the poverty line would still be eligible, but childless adults would not. States would be given a fixed amount per person enrolled in Medicaid to reduce spending.
Third, the Republicans would provide tax credits for people to buy insurance, but only for families earning up to $70,650 per year. (The Affordable Care Act’s subsidies go to families earning up to $94,200.) And employees of large companies, even if those companies did not offer health insurance, would be exempt, regardless of income.
The largest difference is in cost control. Currently, employer-sponsored health insurance is tax free; the Republican plan would make employees pay income tax on at least 35 percent of what their company pays for their plan. The idea is to make patients pay more for their coverage, giving them an incentive to choose cheaper health insurance plans with more deductibles and co-payments, which, in turn, would encourage them to shop around for cheaper tests and treatments and forgo unnecessary ones.
On a more individual level, this is what the Republican plan means: If you are one of the 150 million Americans who get their health insurance through an employer-sponsored plan, get ready for a big tax increase. For a family in the 28 percent tax bracket (earning around $150,000 per year), according to my calculations, it would add up to about $1,470 per year.
