Burr introduces new health plan in Senate
Published January 28, 2014
by Renee Schooff, News and Observer, January 27, 2014.
On the eve of the president’s State of the Union speech, Republican U.S. Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina on Monday offered a plan to repeal Barack Obama’s signature accomplishment, the Affordable Care Act, and replace it with a plan he says would lower costs and expand access to coverage.
His proposal would keep popular elements of the health care law: the ban on limits on lifetime insurance benefits and the option for people to keep adult children on their plans until age 26.
But the rest is different, and its rollout the day before the president’s annual report to Congress helped put Republican ideas on how to replace the law into public debate, though it has virtually no chance of passing as long as the Senate is controlled by Democrats.
The White House dismissed the plan as “just another repeal proposal.”
But Burr in a press statement said it addressed cost problems.
“Our nation’s health care system was unsustainable before Obamacare, and the president’s health care plan made things worse,” he said.
Republican Sens. Orrin Hatch of Utah and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma joined Burr in support of the plan, called the Patient Choice, Affordability, Responsibility and Empowerment Act. It would offer a one-time open enrollment period for people who are uninsured.
Among its key differences with the Affordable Care Act:
• Americans would not be required to buy insurance.
• Insurance companies would be allowed to charge older people five times what they charge younger ones, compared with the 3-to-1 ratio allowed under the current law. The Republican senators say that the result would lower health care costs for many.
The plan gives some details on how this would work, but other details are not yet spelled out, said Joe Antos, a health policy expert at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative research group in Washington.
The penalty probably would be higher premiums if people didn’t buy insurance at the enrollment time, he said.
The proposal also would give small businesses help with the high costs of insurance through a tax credit. People with incomes of up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level – $34,470 for an individual – would be eligible for a refundable tax credit to buy health coverage or pay health bills.
The amount could be modest. A person age 18 to 34 who earns 200 percent of the poverty level – $22,980 for an individual – would receive $1,560, according to an outline of the plan.
In addition, the plan would rely on high-risk pools to help people with expensive health problems who don’t have insurance.
The Republican senators also said they would not expand Medicaid, as the president’s health law does, to provide insurance to the poor who haven’t had it. Instead they would encourage state-level reforms of the Medicaid system. States would receive federal grants to help low-income children and families, elderly people and those who are disabled if they aren’t able to buy insurance.
“We believe our proposal is roughly budget neutral over a decade,” the senators said in a question-and answer-sheet. They said that the insurance, Medicaid and tax changes they recommend would lower costs.
White House spokesman Jay Carney said on Monday that it looked 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 who stand to gain coverage, thanks to the expansion that was part of the Affordable Care Act.”
It also would give insurance companies the power to deny people coverage because of pre-existing conditions and charge women more than men, Carney said, adding: “We strongly believe that’s the wrong course of action.”
January 28, 2014 at 8:45 am
Norm Kelly says:
I'm virtually speechless! Imagine, the Demoncrat party, led by Obama's spokesperson, is opposed to anything that changes socialized medicine part 1, also known as Obamacancer.
We already know that Obamacancer has caused MILLIONS of people to be FORCED off their private pay, individual/family plans. We know that as 2014 draws to a close, and Demons hope it's after the elections, that businesses are going to start cancelling plans, throwing people off their existing plans and onto the government-subsidized 'markets'. The cost of Obamacancer to the federal debt is astronomical. The cost of Obamacancer to individuals is ridiculous. The expansion of Mediscare is a good thing? What person in their right/proper mind wants to be on substandard medical coverage? (that's a reference to mediscare for all you libs that think government medical care is actually good!) Having your doctor drop you as a patient because they are no longer accepting new mediscare patients, having to wait longer to see your doctor because they'd rather see patients they get paid for, being told that mediscare doesn't cover the treatment/drug you need, are all good reasons to WANT to be on mediscare.
Nothing about Obamacancer is good, and the news just gets worse.
So the demons in Washington are opposed to allowing people to make their own medical purchasing decisions? Demons in Washington don't want to give up this control of our lives? What part of this surprises anyone? What's the downside to repealing Obamacancer? Once again, the response from his drug-induced high holiness is that there will be NO negotiation on options for socialized medicine. It's either 100% his way or it's no way at all. There will be NO alternatives to Obamacancer allowed. Wonder how long it will be before he lies again and tells the people that the Republicans have presented no alternatives, the Republicans have no plans, they just KNOW that Obamacancer is bad. If the Republicans would only offer SOME alternative, he promises he would be open to reaching across the aisle, welcoming input from the Republicans. But the House is full of 'do nothings', who can only come up with 'NO' as a response to Obama's administration. How long before Obama labels the Republicans 'obstructionists' again? Bet it happens in this years SOTU address. Which only media types and mind-numbed robots will watch.
How many times does this actually make that Republicans have offered alternatives to socialized medicine? How many times has the N&D recognized, acknowledged that the Republicans have offered an alternative to Obamacancer? Reading this editorial, it's hard to notice that this plan from Burr really is an alternative. The major point of this editorial seems to be that Burr is simply offering ANOTHER repeal plan. What has the N&D had to say about K's marvelous plans? What has K proposed to fix Obamacancer? Oh, wait. The N&D hasn't printed a single word about K's plan because SHE HAS NO PLAN! The only thing K has suggested as the fix to Obamacancer is to make it a full take-over of the health care industry - in total - completely socialize the market - from insurance purchase to medical care delivery. K calls it single payer. But regardless of the name, K's plan is still a full socialization of the medical industry. Has the N&D covered this aspect of K's plans? Has the N&D questioned K on how this would improve health care in America? Has the N&D reported ANYTHING about how successful socialized medicine is in the rest of the world? Has the N&D asked K to show stats from around the world on how well socialized medicine/single payer works such that it's become a rallying cry for DemocRATS in Washington?
What's wrong with repealing Obamacancer? Nothing. It's the RIGHT first step.
(virtually speechless isn't speechless, in case you couldn't tell. also, 'obamacancer' because like a cancer it will destroy the organism it infects. 'obamacancer' because it will have exactly the effect the socialist democrat party wants it to have - destroy private business in the health care industry.)
