National Review Online
Tuesday, March 07, 2017
We believe that Obamacare should be repealed and replaced
with policies that enable Americans to make their own decisions about what sort
of health insurance to buy, and that their options should include low-premium
coverage that protects them against the risk of major financial setbacks
resulting from health care. The legislation released last night by House
Republicans is, even on the most charitable reading, only a first step toward
that goal.
It does not repeal all of Obamacare, leaving many of its regulations
in place. The apparent rationale for this omission is that eliminating the
regulations would subject the legislation to a fatal Senate filibuster. We have
recommended that Republicans defang the regulations by replacing Obamacare’s
subsidies with a simple new tax credit that people could use to buy insurance
governed by a new, lighter regulatory regime. That way Obamacare’s regulations
would stay on the books but no longer hinder consumer choice. But Republicans
shrank from this option, too.
We disagree with this tactical decision, which places Senate
parliamentary rules — or, rather, places guesses about how those rules would
operate — ahead of good health policy and making good on longstanding party
promises. It also seems to us that Republicans would be better off rallying
behind a bill in which they really believe, even if Democrats kill it with a
filibuster, than trying and failing to enact a bill that they support only
tepidly. That second outcome may now take place.
Moreover, the legislation has some serious flaws even as a
first step toward full repeal and replacement. It eliminates Obamacare’s fines
on people who go without insurance, but in their place creates a new surcharge
for people who let their insurance lapse and then try to purchase a new policy.
The goal is to keep healthy people from leaving the insurance rolls and thus
destabilizing insurance markets.
The surcharge is a heavy-handed instrument: Insurers would
be obligated to impose it regardless of their preferences. Yet the surcharge
might not achieve its goal. A lot of healthy people might well decide to go
without insurance and run the risk of paying a surcharge if they get sick
later. The surcharge even undermines its own goal, since it would discourage
healthy people who had already left the insurance rolls from getting back on
them.
The bill has its good points. If the surcharge works, the
deregulation in the bill would lower premiums. Many of Obamacare’s taxes would
be repealed. Obamacare’s tax credits create high effective marginal tax rates
for people in the lower middle class; the bill’s replacement tax credits would
avoid this problem. Permissible contributions to and limits on health savings
accounts would be loosened. Federal contributions to Medicaid would be capped,
ending the perverse incentives that have for decades enabled the growth of the
program.
All in all, though, the bill is a disappointment. And it is
not too late to get a second opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment