Behind closed doors, Republicans worry about replacing Obamacare

A leaked recording captures Republican lawmakers worrying about how to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.

Nate Chute/Reuters/File
A small group of demonstrators stand outside a hotel before former South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, president of the The Heritage Foundation, speaks at a 'Defund Obamacare Tour' rally in Indianapolis, August 26, 2013.

Republican lawmakers are uncertain about how to reshape the nation’s healthcare system and anxious about the consequences if they don’t figure it out soon, a leaked recording of a closed-door meeting shows.

The meeting, held during a party retreat in Philadelphia on Thursday, finds GOP senators and representatives wringing their hands about questions like how to preserve the stability of healthcare markets as well as costs for those with Obamacare coverage; how to avoid political minefields on funding for Medicaid and Planned Parenthood; how to secure Democratic support for a plan and whether they can do it all before Obamacare is repealed.

The release of the recording comes as GOP leaders and the White House put their foot to the accelerator, racing toward a legislative repeal of the Affordable Care Act accompanied by executive actions from President Trump. And with Republican policy committees offering little in the way of firm solutions, the tape highlights both the enormous complexity of the transition and the uncertainty of what, exactly, the nation’s healthcare system might become.

One source of concern for the lawmakers in the meeting was how fast a replacement for Obamacare would need to be put together.

“Our goal, in my opinion, should be not a quick fix. We can do it rapidly – but not a quick fix,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R) of Tennessee, according to Washington Post quotes from the recording. “We want a long-term solution that lowers costs.”

President Trump has offered promises to replace Obamacare without creating lags that could leave Americans exposed. But his positions on key items, like the individual mandate, have varied.

Legislative solutions are floating around Congress, as The Christian Science Monitor’s Francine Kiefer reported this week. One authored by Sen. Susan Collins (R) of Maine and Sen. Bill Cassidy (R) of Louisiana – and shot down by Democrats – would use a “state-choice” strategy that leaves out the individual mandate to buy coverage, combined with some more liberal tenets:

The bill’s key alternative option for states would do away with individual and employer mandates and benefit requirements, and instead auto-enroll everyone who isn’t covered by employer or public healthcare in a basic package.

That package would include individual, federally funded health savings accounts, a high-deductible health plan, and a basic pharmacy benefit. People could opt out of the plan, or purchase more insurance. This alternative would enlarge the pool of covered customers, the bill’s authors explain, theoretically covering all of a state's uninsured population.

It would keep the popular parts of the Affordable Care Act, including no lifetime caps on care, no prohibition of pre-existing conditions, and allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ insurance.

And it would reportedly be paid for with the taxes and Medicare savings that now fund the Affordable Care Act. States would also receive funding for the current law’s Medicaid expansion – even if they do not expand Medicaid.

One of the lawmakers who raised doubts in the Thursday meeting, Rep. Tom MacArthur (R) of New Jersey questioned whether moving too fast would “pull the rug out from under” Americans covered under the Affordable Care Act’s state and federal marketplaces or its expanded Medicaid provisions. Rep. John Faso (R) of New York warned of a “gigantic political trap” if a replacement system defunds Planned Parenthood.

And Rep. Tom McClintock (R) of California cautioned that the party needed to be able to stand behind whatever system would be created by new legislation.

“[It’s] going to be called Trumpcare,” he said, according to the Post. “Republicans will own that lock, stock and barrel, and we’ll be judged in the election less than two years away.”

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.