A small, influential group of Republicans in search of a replacement health care law intends to propose tax credits to help lower-income individuals and families purchase insurance, while simultaneously jettisoning the controversial coverage requirement in the current law, officials said Wednesday.
The proposal is part of an outline that Sen. Orrin Hatch, Sen. Richard Burr and Rep. Fred Upton plan to make public on Thursday, and will be an early marker in a series of competing recommendations likely to be floated in advance of an expected Supreme Court ruling in June on the constitutionality of a key part of the law known as “Obamacare.”
Hatch, from Utah, is chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over much of the current law. Burr, R-N.C. is a member of the panel. Upton, R-Michigan, chairs the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which has significant authority over the law in the House.
Aides to Hatch and Burr declined comment. Upton declined to provide any details of the plan, but said on Tuesday the effort is aimed at “being prepared to talk about something we could support” if the court strikes down a part of the law that provides subsidies for millions who purchase coverage under the current arrangement.
Like other alternatives expected to follow, the starting point for the three lawmakers is repeal of the current law, which Republicans voted against unanimously when it passed in 2010 and have tried repeatedly to uproot since then.
Officials familiar with the emerging proposal said it is based in large part on an outline that Hatch, Burr and former Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma, outlined a year ago. These officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the record before a formal announcement.
By repealing President Barack Obama’s health care law, the plan would eliminate the government requirement for individuals to purchase coverage and the penalty for noncompliance — a key irritant to Republicans — and a companion mandate for businesses to provide it for their workforce. It also is expected to scrap a requirement for all plans to provide coverage in specific areas, including inpatient settings, hospitalization, maternal and newborn coverage, pediatric care and more.
(AP)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
4 Responses
Here is the law in less than one page. .
ANY HEALTH RELATED EXPENSES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO COPAYS, MEDICAL BILLS, HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS, MEDICATIONS INCLUDING OVER COUNTER MEDS ARE HEREBY FULLY DEDUCTIBLE.
“the plan would eliminate the government requirement for individuals to purchase coverage … and a companion mandate for businesses to provide it for their workforce.”
Flip – flop.
When the Democrats wanted an employer mandate (remember ‘Hillarycare’), the GOP said “no” and that people should be individually responsible.
Now, when the Democrats passed the individual mandate (based largely on the Heritage Foundations blueprint), the GOP wants to go back to Hillarycare?
“Repeal and replace” must be better than that!
Fringe,
מדבר שקר תרחק means never tell a lie. I guess you flunked Country Yossi 101.
Nebach, as a lib you probably flunked more than that too.
To #1:
If this would be implemented, it would destroy the free marketplace and the insurance companies. No incentive to improve care or to be competitive. No incentive to deny fraudulent claims. Healthcare costs would skyrocket.
Since Obamacare became the law of the land, the increase of the health care costs have been stymied. The health insurance companies profits have soared.
A small part of the ACA law is the “exchanges” — modeled by Governor Romney’s plan. The first year of ACA had approximately 200 companies competing for these consumers. Now, they have more than 250 competing for their business. Competition is good.
I am a registered Republican, and I believe in the free marketplace.