Three Republican senators offer Obamacare alternative

WASHINGTON Mon Jan 27, 2014 4:26pm EST

U.S. Senator Richard Burr speaks during the National Rifle Association's 139th annual meeting in Charlotte, North Carolina May 14, 2010. REUTERS/Chris Keane

U.S. Senator Richard Burr speaks during the National Rifle Association's 139th annual meeting in Charlotte, North Carolina May 14, 2010.

Credit: Reuters/Chris Keane

Related Topics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Three prominent Republican senators on Monday called for replacing Obamacare with a package of election-year proposals intended to lower health insurance costs while retaining some elements of President Barack Obama's health reform law.

Senators Richard Burr of North Carolina, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and Orrin Hatch of Utah released a legislative blueprint that analysts say could help the Republican Party offer a much-needed vision for healthcare ahead of November's mid-term congressional elections, voting that will determine which party controls Congress in the final two years of the Obama presidency.

The proposals came a day before Obama is scheduled to defend his top domestic policy in his State of the Union address on Tuesday night.

"The American people have found out what is in Obamacare - broken promises in the form of increased healthcare costs, costly mandates and government bureaucracy. They don't like it and don't want to keep it," Burr said in a statement.

Obama's Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has extended health coverage to millions of people, despite a botched October rollout. The administration says 6.3 million people have signed up for private insurance as a result of implementation. A similar number have been determined eligible for Medicaid coverage.

The Republican alternative - dubbed the Patient Choice, Affordability, Responsibility and Empowerment Act, or CARE Act - would repeal Obamacare's mandates, taxes and fees and replace the law with what aides called "common-sense, patient-centered" reforms intended to lower costs.

As with earlier Republican initiatives, the approach would address costs by making consumers responsible for more of their medical bills, with assistance from health savings accounts funded with pre-tax dollars that could be used to pay for insurance premiums as well as healthcare services.

The plan would keep in place two popular Obamacare provisions by banning lifetime limits on insurance benefits and allowing adult children to stay on their parents' health plans until age 26. It would scale back Obamacare subsidies to help lower-income people buy private insurance, allow insurers to charge older people more and protect the sick against insurance market discrimination only if they remain continuously insured.

Medicaid, the program for the poor, which Obamacare would expand to Americans with incomes of up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level, would be limited to mothers, children and the frail. Federal payments would be capped but states would receive greater flexibility to run their own Medicaid programs.

Funding for the CARE Act would come mainly from new federal taxes on employer-sponsored health plans, which are currently excluded from taxation. The Republican proposal would make 35 percent of a plan's value taxable for employees but keep employer tax deductions unchanged.

At the same time, it would leave in place as estimated $700 million in reduced payments to Medicare, while lawmakers seek a separate bipartisan agreement on how to reform the program for the elderly and disabled.

The White House was dismissive. "This looks very much like just another repeal proposal, another attempt to raise taxes on the middle class, to keep uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions locked out of the market, to raise costs on seniors and to take away Medicaid from the millions of Americans," White House spokesman Jay Carney told a briefing.

But analysts said the proposal could help Republicans in the coming months.

"It gives them an opportunity to talk about these things in a more positive way than just repeal and replace," said Joseph Antos of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative Washington think tank.

Republicans have already made Obamacare a major campaign issue in hopes of leveraging the law's unpopularity into active voter support in November. Republicans voted to repeal, defund or dismantle the law more than 40 times in the House of Representatives.

Of likely U.S. voters, 43 percent view Obamacare at least somewhat favorably, while 52 percent have an unfavorable view, according to a Rasmussen Reports poll released on Monday.

But there is no consensus on how to replace the law and party leaders believe it important enough to offer a positive vision that House Republicans have made it a major topic for their annual retreat this week.

(Additional reporting by Roberta Rampton; Editing by Steve Orlofsky)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (35)
QuidProQuo wrote:
Sorry. shove it. Obama care isn’t affecting me so If I have to choose between being taxed on my employer provided healthcare or supporting the subsidies, I’ll support the subsidies. Why should I be taxed on a benefit that has zero cash value to me?

Jan 27, 2014 4:41pm EST  --  Report as abuse
AlkalineState wrote:
Maybe they should have offered their ‘alternatives’ at the time the law was getting made. Instead of throwing tantrums and talking about death panels. Use your time at the table wisely.

Jan 27, 2014 4:49pm EST  --  Report as abuse
COindependent wrote:
@Quid you need to review history, as to how this all started. During periods of wage and price controls, employer funded benefits were used as an offset due to their inability to raise hourly wages.

It was primarily a tool of the unions–but migrated to other segments of the private sector. Thus, your benefits have a real “cash value” regardless of who pays for them. And, do not think they are still free under Obamacare, as there are at least two new forms you will have to complete as part of your tax return to fund Obamacare.

One way or another, you are going to have to pay–the Dems decided that. And wait until you have to pay the 3.8% Obamacare tax on the sale of your home should your gain exceed your exemption. It’s all there in the “pass it so you can see what’s in it legislation.)

As for all the new enrollees under ACA, 80% of them are enrolling under Medicaid (reduced premiums) so you are paying for that too.

The working guy is going to take a beating on this legislation–the Dems and the POTUS knew this from day one, but were not willing to share that information with you. Since 46% of the population does not pay federal income taxes, you are the only guy remaining who can fund this program.

Jan 27, 2014 5:02pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.