Skip to main content

Republican Obamacare Alternatives Would Have Been Worse

We hear so often that the Republicans have offered no alternatives to Obamacare that we think it must be true.  It isn’t. 

They presented at least two alternatives to the Affordable Care Act in 2009. 

And neither would be better than what we have today.  One would have had all the Obamacare implementation problems.  And the other would have insured no more than a thimbleful of people. 

The first was called the Patients’ Choice Act, offered by Paul Ryan.  The other was called the Affordable Health Care Act for America, offered by John Boehner.

Elements of the Ryan plan, which was introduced in the spring of 2009, will sound very familiar to you:

“The federal government partners with states to create State Health Insurance Exchanges.”

These exchanges became a core component of Obamacare, and would look exactly like the exchanges in place today.

“The Exchange would require all participating insurers to offer coverage to any individual – regardless of age or health history.”

Apparently no one in early 2009 thought that people with pre-existing conditions should be excluded from having affordable insurance.

“Plans offering coverage through an Exchange would have to meet the same statutory standard used for the health benefits given to members of Congress.”

In Obamacare, this standard became known as the ten essential health benefits.

Ryan also proposed “simple auto-enrollment” as his form of “not-quite-an-individual mandate.”

I’ll let Rep. Ryan explain exactly what he meant here.  “For patients who make no decisions [about whether to have health insurance], they would simply be automatically enrolled in a low-cost, high-deductible catastrophic health plan.”  “States could also use their DMVs or state income tax forms as vehicles for auto-enrollment.”

Rep. Ryan eliminated the deductibility of group health insurance premiums, but offered every individual a $2,700 tax rebate and every family a $5,700 tax rebate toward the cost of insurance and to finance this auto-enrollment.

These rebates became the more generous, but income-dependent, tax credits now offered by Obamacare.

Rep. Ryan also called for the creation of Accountable Care Organizations – which became law through Obamacare – to help restructure the health care industry. 

All of these provisions are reasons why President Obama could argue, fairly, that there were plenty of Republican fingerprints on the Affordable Care Act.

The similarities in Ryancare and Obamacare may be striking, but there were some big differences, too. 

If Ryancare had become law, there would have been no Medicaid expansion, and Medicare would have offered more private options.  Insurers would not have been subject to minimum medical loss ratio requirements, children would not have been able to remain on their parents’ insurance until age 26, there would be a federal takeover of the Medicaid long term care program, and there would be no new benefits for veterans.

But here’s what matters today and what Paul Ryan would like you to forget.  If his plan had been adopted in full, we would have the exact same set of problems with the health insurance exchanges as we do today – and then some.

But Republicans shifted away from the Ryan plan as more of it became part of Obamacare.  Their vision became smaller, and John Boehner offered a new plan in November of 2009.  He called for an expansion of high-risk pools for individuals and reinsurance programs in the small group market.

The Congressional Budget Office analyzed the Boehner amendment and came to the following conclusions.  Boehnercare would have had little or no positive effect on the cost of group health insurance.  And it would have reduced the number of uninsured people by a measly 3 million by 2019.

Paul Ryan and John Boehner love to throw stones at Obamacare and its exchanges today, but they are living in glass houses.

Because if either of their plans had become law, we would clearly be far worse off than we are today.
  • With no Medicaid expansion, no minimum payout requirements for insurers, and costly risk pools the primary insurance option for people with chronic diseases, we would be looking at new exchange enrollments in the hundreds or thousands today, not the hundreds of thousands.  
  • But tens of millions of people who currently have large group health insurance would be discovering that they were also being thrown into this new individual market because their employers could no longer deduct the cost of their premiums.
  • And even in the best case scenario, we would barely be moving the needle on reducing the number of uninsured. 


Talk about a disaster.

Paul Gionfriddo via email: gionfriddopaul@gmail.com.  Twitter: @pgionfriddo.  Facebook: www.facebook.com/paul.gionfriddo.  LinkedIn:  www.linkedin.com/in/paulgionfriddo/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Veterans and Mental Illness

On a sultry June morning in our national’s capital last Friday, I visited the Vietnam Veterans Memorial .   Scores of people moved silently along the Wall, viewing the names of the men and women who died in that war.   Some stopped and took pictures.   One group of men about my age surrounded one name for a photo.   Two young women posed in front of another, perhaps a grandfather or great uncle they never got to meet. It is always an incredibly moving experience to visit the Wall.   It treats each of the people it memorializes with respect. There is no rank among those honored.   Officer or enlisted, rich or poor, each is given equal space and weight. It is a form of acknowledgement and respect for which many veterans still fight. Brave Vietnam veterans returned from Southeast Asia to educate our nation about the effects of war and violence. I didn’t know anything about Post Traumatic Stress Disorder when I entered the Connecticut Legislature in the late 1970s.   I had only vag

Scapegoats and Concepts of a Plan: How Trump Fails Us

When a politician says he has “concepts of a plan” instead of a plan, there is no plan. And yet, that’s where we are with Donald Trump, nine years after he first launched a political campaign promising to replace Obamacare with something cheaper and better, nearly four years after he had four years to try to do just that. And fail. Doubling down during Tuesday’s debate, he claimed he had “concepts of a plan” to replace Obamacare. Really? He’s got nothing. In fact, he sounds just like Nixon sounded in 1968, when he claimed he had a “secret” plan to get us out of Vietnam. That turned out to be no plan at all (remember “Vietnamization?”) and cost us seven more years there and tens of thousands of lives. The Affordable Care Act, about which I wrote plenty in this blog a decade or more ago, wasn’t perfect. But it was a whole lot better than what we had before it – and anything (save a public option) that has been proposed since. Back then, insurers could deny coverage because of pre-exi

Anxiety and the Presidential Election

Wow. Could the mainstream media do anything more to raise our anxiety levels about the 2024 election? And diminish or negate all the recent accomplishments in our country? Over the past three-and-a-half years, our nation’s economy has been the strongest in the world. Unemployment is at record lows, and the stock market is at record highs. NATO – which last came together to defend the United States in the aftermath of 9/11 – is stronger than ever. Border crossings are down. Massive infrastructure improvements are underway in every state. Prescription drug costs are lower. We finally got out of Afghanistan – evacuating more than 100,000 U.S. citizens and supporters – with just a handful of deaths. Inflation – which rose precipitously in the aftermath of the pandemic – has come back down, and prices in many areas have even begun to decline. And yet, all the media commentators can talk about these days – and they are not “reporters” when they are clearly offering opinions to frame the