Republicans released their “repeal and replace” plan yesterday, a bill Trump calls “wonderful” and which is filled with massive tax cuts for the rich and giveaways to health insurance companies and which restricts access to affordable health care for everyone else. We begin today’s roundup with Margot Sanger-Katz at The New York Times:
Legislative language for what House leaders call the American Health Care Act, released Monday evening, would substantially cut back funding to states that cover poor adults through their Medicaid program. It would cut back on financial assistance for relatively low-income insurance shoppers above the poverty line.
It would offer new financial benefits for the upper-middle class and the rich. Americans higher up the income scale would be eligible for subsidies to help them buy health insurance. Taxes on high incomes would be reversed. And the law would allow people to save more money each year in tax-free health savings and flexible spending accounts — accounts that are most valuable to people who pay high income tax rates and have money to save.
The bill even does away with a provision meant to tax incomes of insurance executives that top $500,000.
Russel Berman at The Atlantic explains that the bill still doesn’t go far enough for some Republicans:
That challenge grew by the hour on Monday night, as key House conservatives immediately criticized the new proposal for failing to fulfill the party’s iron-clad promise to rip out the signature policy of former President Barack Obama. “It’s Obamacare in a different format,” Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, a member of the hardline House Freedom Caucus, said in a phone interview. Jordan cited three provisions that conservatives have complained about for weeks leading up to the formal release of the House GOP plan on Monday evening: its extension of Obamacare Medicaid expansion for another four years; its failure to immediately repeal all of the law’s tax increases; and its call to provide refundable tax credits to help people buy insurance, which Jordan labeled “a new entitlement.”
Eric Levitz and Margaret Hartmann at The New Yorker:
Four Senate Republicans – Rob Portman of Ohio, Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, Cory Gardner of Colorado, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska – raised concerns that the Medicaid overhaul may hurt low-income Americans. “We are concerned that any poorly implemented or poorly timed change in the current funding structure in Medicaid could result in a reduction in access to life-saving health care services,” they said.
Even if Republicans try to pass the measure through the budget reconciliation process – which requires only a simple majority – they can only afford to lose two votes in the Senate and 22 in the House.
And of course, what GOP bill would be complete without an attack on women and the right to choose:
The GOP replacement bill states that Medicaid cannot fund (directly or indirectly) any healthcare organization that “provides for abortions,” according to the Los Angeles Times (read: Planned Parenthood). Low-income women would be most affected by the proposal, according to Vox, since Medicaid recipients typically earn far below the federal poverty line. In 2015, for instance, 78% of the patients seeking services at Planned Parenthood had incomes of 150 percent or less of the federal poverty level, Vox reports.
Due to the Hyde amendment, however, federal dollars are already prohibited from being used on abortion. As a result, when Medicaid dollars are used at Planned Parenthood facilities, they help cover the cost of other health procedures like mammograms, STD testing or birth control. In short, the bill restricts Medicaid funding to healthcare providers like Planned Parenthood because it performs abortions, regardless of how the procedures are paid for.
The bill also includes language that can potentially shift the private insurance market to no longer cover abortion, or at least make it very expensive. Under the GOP’s new healthcare bill, tax credits wouldn’t be allowed for health plans that cover abortion (except for cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother). Though abortions themselves are not outlawed in the new bill, any government subsidies like tax credits would be completely eliminated. The end result, as pointed out by Vox, would be a situation that: 1) Offers little incentive to insurance providers to cover abortion and, 2) Makes it difficult or too expensive for consumers to buy additional coverage for abortion since the pool would be so small.
Ann M. Starrs at CNN:
The threat to affordable, high-quality health coverage and care, particularly when it comes to contraception, is real and urgent. And it is women — foremost women of color, women who are uninsured, low-income, young or otherwise disadvantaged — who will pay the price.
Switching topics, The New York Times editorial board slams “Muslim Ban Lite”:
[A]s administration officials made the case on Monday for the revised measures, there was no hint of contrition and plenty of reckless fearmongering. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the president was exercising his “rightful authority to keep our people safe.” Attorney General Jeff Sessions warned, without providing context or evidence, that more than 300 people admitted to the United States as refugees had been investigated by the F.B.I. for possible terrorism links. Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly, meanwhile, lamented that “our enemies often use our own freedoms and generosity against us.”
The administration has failed to make a reasonable — let alone persuasive — case for barring people from the six nations. Intelligence experts at the Department of Homeland Security found that “country of citizenship is unlikely to be a reliable indicator of potential terrorist activity,” according to a memo leaked to The Associated Press.
Yet, as Mr. Trump has pressed ahead with this dangerous campaign promise, he has missed his own deadline to unveil a secret plan to defeat ISIS. That plan remains a mystery.
On a final note, here’s Eugene Robinson’s take on Trump:
Wow, we went from no drama to all drama in the blink of an eye. An embattled President Trump spent the weekend raging in frustration at his inability to control events — and his administration is just in its second month. How will he make it through a year? Let alone four?
And how long before Trump campaign insiders whose names have surfaced in reports about Russian contacts start lawyering up? How long before nervous political allies start backing away? How long before Republicans in Congress start putting self-interest — and, one dares to hope, the national interest — above party loyalty?