Republicans divided over whether to salvage Obamacare — or replace it — ahead of subsidy deadline
Republicans are grappling with growing frustrations over the rising costs associated with the Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly known as Obamacare. While there is a consensus among GOP lawmakers that the current system is flawed, opinions diverge on the best path forward. Some, like Rep. Harriet Hageman of Wyoming, emphasize the need for stability in the healthcare market, suggesting that dismantling the ACA entirely may not be feasible or beneficial. Hageman’s viewpoint reflects a broader concern among certain Republicans that a complete overhaul could destabilize the healthcare landscape. Similarly, Rep. Mike Kennedy from Utah acknowledges that while there are aspects of Obamacare that are beneficial, reform is necessary—not just more funding for insurance companies.
In contrast, other Republican voices, such as Rep. Randy Fine from Florida, are more adamant about the need to abandon Obamacare altogether, labeling it a failure and warning that its continuation could lead to fiscal disaster. Fine’s stark assessment underscores a faction within the GOP that believes the financial implications of the ACA are unsustainable. As the party navigates the current debate over whether to extend COVID-era subsidies that help millions afford health insurance, the stakes are high. A report from the Committee on a Responsible Federal Budget indicates that maintaining these subsidies could cost taxpayers upwards of $30 billion annually, which has intensified discussions among Republicans about how to reform or replace the ACA.
Amid these debates, there is a growing call among some Republicans for more substantial reforms that could foster a competitive healthcare market, potentially allowing consumers to choose alternatives to Obamacare. Rep. Eric Burlison of Missouri advocates for a new option that would be so appealing that it would draw people away from the ACA voluntarily. This sentiment echoes broader concerns about the need for innovative solutions that go beyond superficial changes. However, practical obstacles remain, particularly in the Senate, where achieving the necessary 60 votes for major reforms is a significant hurdle. As the GOP grapples with these challenges, the focus appears to be shifting towards creating a more competitive healthcare environment that could lower costs without completely dismantling the existing framework of the ACA.
Republicans
across the board harbor deep frustrations with the rising costs of the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare. But while some lawmakers believe it’s time to scrap the system, others fear a wholesale change may do more harm than good.
Rep. Harriet Hageman, R-Wyo., said she struggles to imagine what that change would have to look like.
“I don’t know that you can completely remove it,” Hageman said. “We have to have stability and certainty in the market.”
SCALISE ANNOUNCES GOP HEALTHCARE OVERHAUL COMING IN ‘NEXT FEW WEEKS’ AMID BATTLE OVER EXPIRING SUBSIDIES
Rep. Mike Kennedy, R-Utah, agrees with Hageman.
“It’s not going away anytime soon. I think there are some parts of the Obamacare policies that are positive,” Kennedy said.
”
I don’t think people want to see [it] go away. But there are ways to reform this, and it’s not just sending more money to insurance companies.”
On the other hand, lawmakers like Rep. Randy Fine, R-Fla., had a quick answer ready for whether Republicans should consider finding an alternative.
“Well, yeah! Obamacare is a failure,” Fine said. “That much is very clear.”
“Borrowing money from your kids and grandkids to hide what something actually costs doesn’t lower costs. That’s just lying about what they are. I don’t think we have a choice because if we stay on the Obamacare path, we will bankrupt the country.”
Amid other healthcare-related questions, the GOP’s divisions over Obamacare come as Republicans consider whether to extend COVID-era emergency
Obamacare subsidies
or let the assistance expire at the end of the month.
Republicans concerned about the country’s fiscal picture hope the elimination of the federal assistance will help bring the country closer to its pre-COVID spending levels. Democrats, by contrast, worry that letting the subsidies expire
could leave
90% of the 24 million Obamacare enrollees with higher premiums overnight.
REPUBLICAN PITCHES HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS ‘ON STEROIDS’ THAT AMERICANS COULD USE TO BUY INSURANCE — AND STEAK
According to the Committee on a
Responsible Federal Budget
, a nonpartisan fiscal policy think tank, continuing the subsidies could cost upwards of $30 billion a year.
As a part of those conversations, Republicans have explored how they can reform Obamacare to make it more affordable. To Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo., the change
can’t be marginal.
“I would say we can’t be tinkering around the edges here. Like if we tinker, we’re really not gonna fix this problem,” Burlison said.
In some ways, Burlison believes replacing Obamacare shouldn’t be the focus of the GOP. By creating a better alternative, he believes Republicans can encourage policyholders to walk away from Obamacare voluntarily.
“I think we need to do a new option and introduce that. And honestly, I think that this option will be so great no one will want to be in Obamacare anymore,” Burlison said.
SCHUMER UNVEILS DEMOCRATS’ OBAMACARE FIX PLAN, LIKELY DEAD IN THE WATER
Other Republicans would like to explore more substantive reforms — perhaps even scrap the program — but are skeptical of large-scale change in the face of current political realities.
“The question is, can you pass it? Sixty votes in the Senate. Not gonna happen. That’s just not realistic. So, let’s talk about things we can pass,” Rep. Rich McCormick, R-Ga., said when asked about whether Republicans should be looking for an alternative.
To advance most legislation, Senate Republicans need 60 votes. They hold just 53 seats in the chamber.
Instead, McCormick believes Republicans can make changes that make the healthcare space more competitive to drive down costs — even if Obamacare remains in place.
“The reason that you have a competitive market in non-insured products such as LASIK eye surgery, which now is about the same as it was 40 years ago, 50 years ago. Why? Because it’s competitive. Even despite all the inflationary costs to everything else, it didn’t increase. Because we have better competition, because it’s not paid for by insurance,” McCormick said.
“When insurance gets involved, when government gets involved, it becomes more expensive by design,” McCormick said.
