The three big reasons Republicans can’t replace Obamacare

Republicans are preparing to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Yet they haven’t come up with a replacement. And they won’t, for three reasons. 

Jonathan Bachman/Reuters
The federal government forms for applying for health coverage are seen at a rally held by supporters of the Affordable Care Act, widely referred to as 'Obamacare,' outside the Jackson-Hinds Comprehensive Health Center in Jackson, Miss., on October 4, 2013.

Republicans are preparing to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and have promised to replace it with something that doesn’t leave more than 20 million Americans stranded without health insurance. 

Yet they haven’t come up with a replacement. And they won’t, for three reasons. 

First, Republicans say they want the replacement to be “market-based.” But Obamacare is already market based – relying on private, for profit health insurers. 

That’s already a problem. The biggest health insurers – Anthem, Aetna, Humana, Cigna, and United Health – are so big they can get the deals they want from the government by threatening to drop out of any insurance system Republicans come up with. Several have already dropped out of Obamacare. 

Even now they’re trying to merge into far bigger behemoths that will be able to extort even better terms from the Republicans.            

Second, every part of Obamacare depends on every other part. Trump says he’d like to continue to bar insurers from denying coverage to individuals with preexisting conditions. 

But this popular provision depends on healthy people being required to pay into the insurance pool, a mandate that Republicans vow to eliminate. 

The GOP also wants to keep overall costs down, but they haven’t indicated how. More than 80 percent of Americans who buy health insurance through Obamacare receive federal subsidies. Yet Republicans have no plan for raising the necessary sums. 

Which gets us to the third big reason Republicans can’t come up with a replacement. Revoking the tax increases in Obamacare – a key part of the repeal – would make it impossible to finance these subsidies.

The two biggest of these taxes  – a 3.8-percentage-point surtax on dividends, interest and other unearned income; and a 0.9-percentage-point increase in the payroll tax that helps fund Medicare – are also the most progressive. They apply only to people earning more than $200,000 per year. 

Immediately repealing these taxes, as the GOP says it intends to do, will put an average of $33,000 in the hands of the richest 1 percent this year alone, and a whopping $197,000 into the hands of the top 0.1 percent, according to the Tax Policy Center. 

It would also increase the taxes of families earning between $10,000 and $75,000 – including just about all of Trump’s working class voters. 

Worse yet, eliminating the payroll tax increase immediately pushes Medicare’s hospital fund back toward the insolvency that was looming before Obamacare became law. 

Ultimately, the only practical answer to these three dilemmas is Medicare for all – a single payer system. But Republicans would never go for it. 

So without Obamacare, Republicans are left with nothing. Zilch. Nada. 

Except the prospect of more than 20 million people losing their health insurance, and a huge redistribution from the working class to the very rich. 

This story originally appeared on RobertReich.org.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.