Posted on 09/21/2017 6:56:01 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Two months ago it became clear that the Better Care Reconciliation Act, the Senate Republican leadership’s attempt to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, lacked the votes to pass. That legislation combined many worthy reforms to the structure of American health care, with $904 billion in cuts to Medicaid spending and subsidies for the purchase of plans on the exchanges. As a result, many powerful groups stood to lose from the passage of legislation, while few stood to immediately profit from its enactment.
Senators Lindsey Graham and Bill Cassidy have recognized that fixing the non-group health-insurance market and refocusing the Medicaid program are substantial tasks that will not be possible if coupled with enormous spending cuts. They have therefore proposed to combine the funds that CBO projects would be associated with the Medicaid expansion and premium tax credits associated with the exchanges, and to delegate these resources to the states in the form of block grants.
This simple solution goes further than BCRA in redressing the great disparity in federal Medicaid assistance between states. Indeed, it does so without concentrating cuts on low-spending expansion states such as Arizona. It also prevents states from evading spending caps by merely inflating the number of healthy, able-bodied individuals enrolled, as they could do under the BCRA.
The ACA spends more than twice as much on expanding Medicaid as it does on premium tax credits for the exchange. By consolidating funding for both entitlements, Graham-Cassidy allows states to pool resources to increase the attractiveness and stability of the individual market. In doing this, it meets a clear need, but it also facilitates more thorough reform by repealing the individual mandate and potentially allowing fairly priced, fully competitive insurance to be offered outside of the exchanges. It also greatly expands the flexibility and potential uses of Health Savings Accounts.
When an earlier draft of the proposed bill was released, Senator Graham boasted of its value pluralism, which would also allow liberal states to use funds to advance single-payer. This prospect has alarmed some conservatives. Yet the two main obstacles to single-payer are lack of money and voters’ aversion to rationing. Graham-Cassidy would reduce payments to the liberal states likeliest to institute single-payer systems, while doing nothing to make voters more enthusiastic about being denied access to care.
A more modest concern would be that, instead of helping states use Medicaid funds to bolster the non-group market, Graham-Cassidy could allow them to raid exchange subsidies for the sake of expanding Medicaid (in the hope that additional federal assistance would then be forthcoming to bail out an individual market left to collapse). This concern looms larger when one remembers the history of states’ acting in bad faith — contorting the design of their own health-care programs to claim more than their fair share of federal assistance for purposes other than that intended. Graham-Cassidy does well to limit the proportion of funds block-granted that can be used on Medicaid to 20 percent — potentially shifting the bulk of Medicaid-expansion enrollees into the mainstream individual market.
Similarly, one might imagine that lobbyists could pressure states to use the block-grant funds as a form of corporate welfare for their most politically powerful hospital systems. But the rules associated with the Children’s Health Insurance Program are well designed to prevent the inappropriate use of funds while allowing states flexibility to target assistance to those in the greatest need, and Graham-Cassidy does well to employ them. In fact, replacing matching funds with a fixed amount of assistance gives states their first major incentive to reduce the cost of health-care delivery by enhancing provider competition.
Graham-Cassidy has merit because it holds out the prospect of reconstructing a properly competitive insurance market. It also represents a major improvement over the current structure of Medicaid. Its critics, including Senator Rand Paul, are wrong to argue that it leaves 90 percent of Obamacare intact — that may be true of its narrow fiscal impact, but it would sweep aside that legislation’s most dysfunctional incentives and lay the groundwork necessary for further incremental improvements.
Trump also says he would sign it if it passes.
34 states have Republican Governors. I trust them more than Congress or the Swamp.
If the mandates are eliminated, ObamaCare is done; it needs to squeeze involuntary customers (de facto taxpayers) to transfer wealth (in this case, goods and services) from the “makers” to the “takers”...
Tell Rand Paul, he is the purist that insists on the “perfect”, which is total repeal, and NO replacement.
Perfect is the enemy of good, every time.
Nothing has to be perfect, but there still can be a condition of “perfectly acceptable”.
Cash Money for insurance companies baby! Spend, baby, spend!
I heard they were equal block grants for each state... Whar? So each dollar that California gets, Mississippi gets..
if it is true, it is a disaster that will need bailing out. If it is false, every American will fund the coastal states single payer.. it. Will. Fail.
Then what?
My guess, cash money for every dem state in America..for their experiments. Good part, maybe they will all move back home!
Perfect is repeal Obamacare. Plain and simple.
Perfect was promised.
Rand Paul wants interstate purchasing of health insurance to be added to bill - i.e. like auto insurance.
That would provide more free market choices and less state & fed govt socialist intrusion.
What’s wrong with more free market - ala interstate purchasing - for consumers?
Rue Paul should get a banana for saving Obamacare which will lead
to single payer. Sure this bill isn’t perfect. But the votes are not there
to repeal. That has been clear for quite some time, no matter how many
folks whine about it.
So what is possible for this moment in time?
Elect more conservative senators and that could change in the future.
But for the moment, this is about as good as it’s going to get.
Obama should send Rue Paul, the purist, a thank you note.
“What’s wrong with more free market - ala interstate purchasing - for consumers?”
Nothing. But it can’t be done under reconciliation.
What ever happened to just “REPEAL”?
Also it will turn o’care into Trumpcare which of course has a much nicer sound to it. :)
Then Mitch-the-Bitch needs to eliminate the 60-vote rule and begin passing real MAGA policies...
...and not another socialist version of RyanCare/obamaCareLite!
Because it will eventually reduce choice to a few large insurance companies. And that will tempt the Feds to more and more control. And when have they not given in to that temptation?
Auto insurance is done state by state. There are enough folks in even the smallest state to make the actuarial numbers work.
Why should I pay for stupidity in CA? There's enough here in NJ, where at least I have some voice in the matter.
Rand Paul is wrong on this. If done state by state, and your state gets stupid, you are free to move to another state. Decentralization grants freedom, not centralization. See Taleb's Antifragile book.
State Health Insurance is still Govt/Socialist health insurance - funded by Fed tax dollars from American tax payers.
Just pass “REPEAL ONLY” and get govt out of our health insurance!
It’s not rocket science....
“Then Mitch-the-Bitch needs to eliminate the 60-vote rule...”
Might as well if the Dems ever get back in the majority they are sure to eliminate that rule.
Trump added “And Replace” sometime during the 2016 campaign.
Yes, I disagree with Trump on this part. :)
Yes my concerns with this are two fold like Rand Paul. We would still be spending money we can’t afford and if you block grant to the states you will not get to purchase insurance across state lines unless its written into the bill.
It’s a step in the right direction and will likely lead to more steps in the right direction. Giving more power to the States is never a bad thing - at least people can move to a better State if they choose w/o abandoning their country....
Increased competition with lower prices. It goes against the unholy relationship of the insurance companies and the corrupt bureaucracy of the federal government.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.