What Is To Be Done: Reveal And Replace Obamacare

Reps. Fred Upton, right, and Dave Camp, both R-Mich.

Millions of Americans now find themselves in the midst of a massive botched experiment called Obamacare. Nearly every poll-tested health care commitment is evaporating into thin air, leaving us with higher costs and headaches of uncertainty.

Unfortunately, this was both predicted and avoidable. Obamacare was premised on an outmoded, top-down approach to health care - a 40 year-old liberal aspiration, enabled by unified Democrat control of Washington in 2010.

Three years later, the implications are staggering. Despite the White House's claims to the contrary, we are faced with higher health care costs, many will lose or face substantial change to their insurance coverage, and job creation is threatened as hours and wages are reduced as a result of Obamacare. And the number of people dependent on the government for their health care will expand exponentially, exposing future generations to massive fiscal risks.

As Republicans we find ourselves in a challenging position witnessing this slow motion calamity. Repealing the bungled law and replacing it with a modern, common sense, bottom-up alternative is our preferred approach, which is why the House will vote tomorrow to fully repeal this government takeover of the health care system. Yet, while this vote is important, President Obama's reelection makes full repeal unlikely - at least for now.

So, if repeal is not a viable short-term option, reveal must be. Dissecting Obamcare's defective anatomy while offering alternatives is the way to get our health care system back on track. That's why the two committees we chair will continue our aggressive oversight, exposing Obamacare's failures - and discussing ways to provide more affordable health care to all Americans.

What have our efforts "revealed" so far?

For starters, Obamacare suffers from its own pre-existing condition: hyper-partisanship. You can't build an entirely new health care regime using a partisan hammer. But that's exactly what the Democrats in Congress did, with no Republican votes in the House or Senate.

Enduring health care change must garner some bipartisan support. So, we pledge to focus our efforts on policies that can actually make our health care system work better for families and employers struggling to continue providing benefits for their workers.

Second, the most important health care issue for Americans is cost. Health care costs are far too high for workers and employers. Democrats lost sight of the main priority. Roughly 85 percent of Americans already have health insurance. Instead of figuring out how to offer more affordable options for the uninsured, Obamacare upends the coverage of those that have it.

A recent investigation by one of our committees found that the new health law could drive individual premium increases as high has 400 percent and rates in the small business market could rise by as much as 200 percent.

It is a sad statement on Obamacare that Americans in the individual market will have to hope they only get hit with the average expected premium increase: 96 percent.

Republicans have a lot of affordability ideas. We support the creation of purchasing options across state lines, more flexibility for civic and fraternal associations to provide health insurance, incentives for states that control health care costs, the offering of high deductible plans, the creation of state-based high risk pools for people with pre-existing conditions, and medical liability reform. Unlike Obamacare's top-down mandates, these ideas would all reduce the cost of health care.

Consider this one example. A recent college graduate, Ashley, gets a job at a new start up company. She's excited about the work. Because the firm is just getting off the ground, it cannot yet afford to offer health care benefits.

Under Obamacare, Ashley is forced to buy a plan with all the bells, whistles, and coverage options designed for a woman two and three times her age who faces very different health care needs. We believe Ashley should have more options available to her and the ability to buy a plan tailored to her needs and her budget.

These affordability policies would allow us to remove one of the most unpopular features of Obamacare - the mandate that everyone must purchase government-approved insurance. We don't think it is right for Washington to force Ashley to buy a certain type of health care plan or face a tax.

Eliminating the mandate means the massive expansion of Medicaid, as well as most of the subsidies to purchase insurance in health exchanges, would no longer be necessary, saving taxpayers over a trillion dollars over the next ten years.

We are revealing better health care ideas. A bipartisan, affordability first approach, based on encouraging innovation and market-based choices must replace the bungled gambit of the massive old Washington spending and top-down regulatory mandates known as Obamacare.

Rep. Dave Camp, R-MI, is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. Rep. Fred Upton, R-MI, is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

View the original article here

Rep. Price To Unveil Bill To Replace ObamaCare

Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) on Wednesday said he was poised to unveil a wide-ranging replacement plan for the president’s healthcare reform law.

“We will be introducing a bill, maybe even today … that will be a comprehensive approach. There are a whole lot of things in it,” he told reporters. 

Price said the bill is similar to one he offered in the last Congress, which had more than 80 cosponsors.

The Price proposal was a leading candidate for a replacement to ObamaCare, although GOP lawmakers failed to unify around any one bill. Price introduced his bill in 2009 as an alternative to the Affordable Care Act, later adding a section to repeal the law.

The bill will not require individuals to buy insurance, something called for under the president’s healthcare reforms.  Instead, the bill will offer tax deductions and advanced tax credits to purchase insurance.

“You have got to get folks covered,” said Price. “What we do is make it attractive from a financial standpoint to get coverage.” 

The bill would make employer-based healthcare portable “like a 401k plan” he added. 

To address pre-existing conditions, uninsured individuals would be allowed to join a giant risk pool to purchase insurance, he said. 

The bill would also contain a tort-reform proposal, Price said. 

“I think what we need to do is pull the emergency brake [on ObamaCare],” Price added. “There are so many other positive solutions … we ought to move in that direction as soon as possible.”

Price touted the bill as part of a “positive” agenda the GOP will push to build support among voters.

“My constituents are frustrated with Washington. Things don’t seem to be getting done,” Price said. 

 “I think that what we have to do is move forward with a positive solution,” he added. “We are excited about it.”

Elise Viebeck contributed.

View Comments

View the original article here

What Is To Be Done: Reveal And Replace Obamacare

Reps. Fred Upton, right, and Dave Camp, both R-Mich.

Millions of Americans now find themselves in the midst of a massive botched experiment called Obamacare. Nearly every poll-tested health care commitment is evaporating into thin air, leaving us with higher costs and headaches of uncertainty.

Unfortunately, this was both predicted and avoidable. Obamacare was premised on an outmoded, top-down approach to health care - a 40 year-old liberal aspiration, enabled by unified Democrat control of Washington in 2010.

Three years later, the implications are staggering. Despite the White House's claims to the contrary, we are faced with higher health care costs, many will lose or face substantial change to their insurance coverage, and job creation is threatened as hours and wages are reduced as a result of Obamacare. And the number of people dependent on the government for their health care will expand exponentially, exposing future generations to massive fiscal risks.

As Republicans we find ourselves in a challenging position witnessing this slow motion calamity. Repealing the bungled law and replacing it with a modern, common sense, bottom-up alternative is our preferred approach, which is why the House will vote tomorrow to fully repeal this government takeover of the health care system. Yet, while this vote is important, President Obama's reelection makes full repeal unlikely - at least for now.

So, if repeal is not a viable short-term option, reveal must be. Dissecting Obamcare's defective anatomy while offering alternatives is the way to get our health care system back on track. That's why the two committees we chair will continue our aggressive oversight, exposing Obamacare's failures - and discussing ways to provide more affordable health care to all Americans.

What have our efforts "revealed" so far?

For starters, Obamacare suffers from its own pre-existing condition: hyper-partisanship. You can't build an entirely new health care regime using a partisan hammer. But that's exactly what the Democrats in Congress did, with no Republican votes in the House or Senate.

Enduring health care change must garner some bipartisan support. So, we pledge to focus our efforts on policies that can actually make our health care system work better for families and employers struggling to continue providing benefits for their workers.

Second, the most important health care issue for Americans is cost. Health care costs are far too high for workers and employers. Democrats lost sight of the main priority. Roughly 85 percent of Americans already have health insurance. Instead of figuring out how to offer more affordable options for the uninsured, Obamacare upends the coverage of those that have it.

A recent investigation by one of our committees found that the new health law could drive individual premium increases as high has 400 percent and rates in the small business market could rise by as much as 200 percent.

It is a sad statement on Obamacare that Americans in the individual market will have to hope they only get hit with the average expected premium increase: 96 percent.

Republicans have a lot of affordability ideas. We support the creation of purchasing options across state lines, more flexibility for civic and fraternal associations to provide health insurance, incentives for states that control health care costs, the offering of high deductible plans, the creation of state-based high risk pools for people with pre-existing conditions, and medical liability reform. Unlike Obamacare's top-down mandates, these ideas would all reduce the cost of health care.

Consider this one example. A recent college graduate, Ashley, gets a job at a new start up company. She's excited about the work. Because the firm is just getting off the ground, it cannot yet afford to offer health care benefits.

Under Obamacare, Ashley is forced to buy a plan with all the bells, whistles, and coverage options designed for a woman two and three times her age who faces very different health care needs. We believe Ashley should have more options available to her and the ability to buy a plan tailored to her needs and her budget.

These affordability policies would allow us to remove one of the most unpopular features of Obamacare - the mandate that everyone must purchase government-approved insurance. We don't think it is right for Washington to force Ashley to buy a certain type of health care plan or face a tax.

Eliminating the mandate means the massive expansion of Medicaid, as well as most of the subsidies to purchase insurance in health exchanges, would no longer be necessary, saving taxpayers over a trillion dollars over the next ten years.

We are revealing better health care ideas. A bipartisan, affordability first approach, based on encouraging innovation and market-based choices must replace the bungled gambit of the massive old Washington spending and top-down regulatory mandates known as Obamacare.

Rep. Dave Camp, R-MI, is chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. Rep. Fred Upton, R-MI, is chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

View the original article here

The Effort To Replace The Sequester In One Table

Senate Democrats have officially rolled out their plan to replace the so-called “sequester,” the set of spending cuts scheduled for March that were set in motion by the deal that raised the debt ceiling in 2011. House Republicans have yet to roll out a new plan of their own to replace the sequester, instead pointing to a sequester replacement bill that they passed in the last Congress (that they have no plans to vote on again). The Congressional Progressive Caucus has also proposed a replacement for the sequester.

Here’s a comparison of the three plans::

Congressional Progressive Caucus PlanReplaces the sequester with $110 billion in deficit reduction, equally split between spending cuts and revenue.Replaces the sequester with $960 billion in new revenue, $278 billion in defense cuts, and invests in new job creation measures.Includes no new revenue. Denies the Child Tax Credit to parents who are undocumented immigrants.Includes $55 billion in revenue, split between: a 30 percent minimum tax on millionaires (the Buffett rule), repealing subsidies for oil companies, and eliminating the ability of corporations to deduct the cost of moving jobs overseas.Reinstates the Making Work Pay tax credit. Ends the carried interest loophole that benefits wealthy money managers, closes tax loopholes that encourage corporations to send profits to offshore tax havens, cuts oil subsidies, closes loopholes that benefit buyers of private jets and yachts, and closes loopholes in the estate tax.Includes $27.5 billion in cuts to defense spending.Includes $278 billion in cuts to defense spending.Cuts domestic spending via: cutting food stamps, Medicaid, and the social services block grant (which, among other things, funds Meals on Wheels). Cuts domestic spending via ending direct agriculture subsidies, “which are currently provided regardless of yields, prices, or farm income.”Invests $160 billion in infrastructure.

House Democrats have also released a plan largely in line with the Senate Democrats’ version. The sequester itself, meanwhile, would devastate several important programs that have already been hurt by budget cuts.

Already, the deficit reduction achieved since 2010 (which is hampering economic growth and hurting job creation) has been primarily achieved through spending cuts. In fact, just one-quarter of it has come through new revenue. Even adopting the Senate Democrats plan would mean that overall deficit reduction is tilted heavily towards spending cuts. Only the CPC’s plan would result in deficit reduction having been achieved through equal parts spending cuts and new revenue. The CPC plan is also the only one acknowledging that job creation, not the deficit, is the country’s most pressing problem.

View the original article here

The Project to Replace ObamaCare Begins Now

As 2013 begins, encouraging a discussion about how to replace the president’s health-care law might strike some observers as a case of particularly bad timing. After all, in the year just ended, the Supreme Court upheld most of the provisions of the law and the president won reelection. As a consequence, the best opportunities to remove the law from the books before it ever really got started are now gone. The tough reality now is that Obamacare is not going to be undone during the next four years. So why bring up an alternative plan at this point?

The answer is that replacing Obamacare is by necessity a long-term project; you have to start somewhere. Moreover, it remains essential. Like it not, health-care policy is central to the struggle over the size and scope of governmental power. Without a better approach than Obamacare, there will be no success in limiting government or in lessening the dependence of citizens on the state.

It is also going to take a lot of work and political effort to build the political coalition necessary to move health-care policy in a different direction. Indeed, one of the reasons Obamacare passed in the first place is because opponents of government-dominated health care never coalesced around a serious and workable alternative in the years prior to 2009. Moreover, those efforts that did take place to promote a real alternative, such as Senator John McCain’s proposal from the 2008 campaign, fell far short because they were not preceded by the necessary policy and political groundwork.

But all is not lost. Obamacare is flawed legislation that is already forcing employers to cut back their hiring and limit their employees’ hours. It will soon send premiums sky high for many Americans who already have insurance. Promises about the law’s coverage and cost-control effects were greatly exaggerated. There will come a time — sooner rather than later — when Americans will be ready to hear again about an alternative to Obamacare’s government-heavy approach. At that moment, which might coincide with the 2016 presidential contest, Obamacare’s opponents must be ready with a viable, center-right, market-based alternative that can win public support. And the only way to be ready for a debate on health care in 2016 is to get to work now on the alternative plan. It takes that long to develop a workable framework, get it analyzed with credible numbers, and refine it to ensure it has broad appeal.

In that spirit, I am circulating again two essays on this subject from 2012. The first, co-authored by myself and Robert Moffit of the Heritage Foundation and published in the journal National Affairs, describes what we see as the fundamental principles of an effective, market-based reform plan. The second — a sequel of sorts to the first — is my effort to provide more detail on some of the key features of a workable alternative plan. It was published last month by the American Enterprise Institute in its Health Policy Outlook series.

Advocates of expansive governmental power are always more comfortable than their limited-government opponents talking about health-care policy. It is far easier to sell “the government will take care of it” than to explain why a decentralized, market-driven approach will be better for voters anxious for certainty about their health-care needs. Nonetheless, this fight cannot be avoided. Health care is too important to fiscal policy, to the American economy, and to the concerns of voters to be set aside as an unwinnable issue.

It is of course true that full replacement of Obamacare with a workable, market-based alternative will be an extremely difficult undertaking. But it is also true that a new direction in health care is crucially important for the country. And so, that being the case, it’s far better to get started on the effort now than to delay and thereby handicap the possibility of future success.

View the original article here