Donate Button
Follow us...

ISSUE

Repealing (and Replacing?) Obamacare

Published:2017-Mar-01
Last Updated:2017-Jul-18
Principal Writer:Barry Shatzman

Issue Sections

Understanding The Issue
House Bill
Senate Rewrites
Issue Status
Analysis and Perspectives
More Information

Reported News

Health Care Policy

Related Bills

American Health Care Act

2017 (HR-1628)

American Health Care Act (House)

2017 (HR-1628H)

Better Care Reconciliation Act

2017 (HR-1628S)

Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act

2010 (HR-3590)

We gotta ask...

DID YOU JUST LEARN SOMETHING?
Is it worth a dollar?

News in FiVe is free to read, but it takes time and money to publish.

If you find what we do valuable, please help us continue with a small donation.

Even a dollar or three every so often makes a difference.

It's secure and takes only about a minute.

Thanks!

Click here to contribute

No plan could cover abortion. No funding for Planned Parenthood

In order to receive the assistance to pay premiums that we explained above, any insurance plan purchased cannot include coverage for an abortion.

Also, both proposals would prohibit any federal money being given to Planned Parenthood.

It takes legislative sleight-of-hand to trick the rulebook

Although the American Health Care Act (AHCA) would eliminate the Obamacare mandate and funding to Planned Parenthood, it does neither explicitly.

The Mandate
Congressional Republicans are working to pass the AHCA using the budget reconciliation process. That makes it immune to a filibuster in the Senate, but also restricts the bill to items that directly affect the budget.

So how can the AHCA eliminate a simple provision of the law? Like this...



It doesn't eliminate the mandate. It merely sets the penalty for not buying insurance to $0.

Planned Parenthood
The Constitution prohibits bills of attainder - an act meant to punish a specific individual or group.

So how can the AHCA ban money from going to Planned Parenthood? By not mentioning Planned Parenthood. Instead, it prohibits federal money being made available to any entity if it is...

o A 501(c)(3) nonprofit

o An essential community provider that is primarily engaged in providing family planning and reproductive health services and related medical care

o An entity that provides abortions - except in instances in which the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest or the woman's life is in danger

o An entity that had expenditures under the Medicaid program that exceeded $350 million in fiscal year 2014

In its analysis of the proposed law, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) writes, "CBO expects that, according to those criteria, only Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its affiliates and clinics would be affected."

Even employees covered by the employer are not safe

Allowing states to define what essential health benefits they will require coverage for could affect those who receive coverage from their employer - regardless of what state they work in.

Under Obamacare, companies could choose policies that define essential health benefits for any state they choose. That made little practical difference since Obamacare required all states to cover the same minimum benefits.

Under the AHCA, a state can choose to not require insurance plans to cover maternity care. An employer in any other state would be able to choose that lower standard in deciding what policies to offer. For example, if one state decided to not require that maternity care be covered, no employer anywhere would be required to offer plans that cover maternity care.

As a result, employees on those plans would no longer be protected from lifetime caps and annual caps on how much an insurance company would pay, nor would they be protected by out-of-pocket maximums.

We previously explained what might happen to Obamacare

Replacing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) with either the AHCA or BCRA (or some combination of the two) is just one thing that can be done to dismantle the existing law.

Click here to read our discussion of various ways Obamacare might be dismantled.

Applying for insurance would take much more effort

If insurance companies are allowed to set premiums based on pre-existing conditions (regardless of whether directly through federal law or by an exemption granted to a state), the application process would revert to what it was like prior to Obamacare.

This would mean filling out many details about your health - some of which might require verification or an explanation by your doctor.

Aside from the inconvenience and possible cost of a doctor visit, comparing policies would be more complicated because you would not know how much each would cost until you submitted your application and it was reviewed. This process would need to be completed for each policy you would consider.

How does this compare with the current policy?

Now that the House has passed the bill the Senate will consider it. We'll do the same for the Senate bill that we've done here - compare the proposal against the current policy in order to determine which better serves the overwhelming majority of Americans.

We have put together a list of questions that can be used to compare health care polices. Click here to see it.

                   Tell us if we goofed                                                  Copyright