senate Bill S. 222
Sen. Rand Paul’s "Obamacare Replacement Act"
Argument in favor
Obamacare needs to be replaced. This bill is a good replacement because it allows individuals to buy health insurance across state lines, expands the use of health savings accounts, and also protects people with pre-existing conditions from being left without a way to get covered.
···
02/06/2017
This bill has a number of great things going for it:
1. The individual and employer mandates, community rating restrictions, the medical loss ratio, and other mandates would be repealed.
2. Obamacare’s essential health benefits requirement would also be eliminated, which would effectively legalize low-cost health insurance plans that had been eliminated because of the mandates.
3. Individuals with pre-existing conditions would have a two-year open-enrollment period in which they can get health insurance coverage. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) rules that protect people with pre-existing conditions from being denied coverage under group health insurance plans would be restored.
4. Health insurance plans for individuals would made be available for purchase across state lines by exempting insurers from “secondary state laws” that prohibit the operation of health insurers in secondary states. If an insurer is licensed to sell health insurance policies in one state, they would be able to offer those policies to residents of any other state. The insurer’s primary state would be responsible for regulating the insurer wherever they operate, although secondary states could inform the primary state of failures to comply with the primary state’s insurance law.
5. Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) would be expanded to allow individuals a tax credit of up to $5,000 per taxpayer for contributions to an HSA. There would be no limit on contributions to an HSA, and everything in excess of $5,000 would still be tax-preferred even if a person chooses not to accept the tax credit. The requirement that participants in an HSA be enrolled in a high deductible healthcare plan would be eliminated. Individuals would be able to use funds from an HSA to pay for insurance premiums, medical expenses, and prescription or over-the-counter drugs.
6. The tax treatment of health insurance plans obtained individually or through an employer would be equalized through a universal deduction on both income and payroll taxes. This would be available regardless of how a person gets their health insurance, and wouldn’t interfere with employer-sponsored plans.
7. Individuals would also be allowed to pool together for the purpose of buying health insurance. Nonprofits (including churches, alumni associations, trade associations, and other civic groups) could also participate in the pools as long as they do not condition membership on any health status-related factor.
All in all, if we MUST have government involved in our healthcare, I don't see anything in this bill that I would object to. And Rand Paul is in a unique position (compared to most legislators) to understand firsthand what kinds of problems people face with their healthcare, their insurance, and their out-of-pocket expenses.
···
02/04/2017
It's time to begin replacing Obamacare. It is simply too costly and did not do what it promised. My favorite part of this bill is opening up the state lines to allow COMPETITION of insurance companies to offer better plans at lower costs. The health savings accounts is a nice option for people as well and an open enrollment period of 2 years for people with pre-existing conditions doesn't leave them high and dry and unable to find coverage. Like Rand Paul says, it's time to get the Federal governments hands out of healthcare and let the private markets do their thing again! More Liberty is always a good thing!
02/04/2017
Normally, I see Sen Rand Paul views as his father's views. Nevertheless, I like Rand's proposal as a starting point for the dismantling of the ACA. The Constitution doesn't mention health care, but the ACA/ObamaCare has created addict to their subsidized HC premiums like opiate abusers. These individuals have to be placed into a addiction recovery program. Rand's proposal appears as a excellent start. Incidentally, much of the complaining appears to the recipients of free/subsidized HC who feel taxpayers should continue paying for their policy. Our Founding Fathers said: …"promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." No mention of "free" in the Constitution that I can find. Remember, under Socialism, free belongs to the Administration, not to taxpayer. However, let's think of Rand's proposal as being first base in rounding the bases to home plate where Government is removed from our health care and out of our pocket book. My rights to liberty doesn't mean your rights to spend my money for your healthcare or any other supportive service, such as heating oil, housing, telephones or internet access.
Argument opposed
There’s no doubt that Obamacare is imperfect and could use reforms, but this bill would overturn too many of the consumer protections that the Affordable Care Act put in place. Insurance plans offered under this proposal wouldn’t offer as robust of coverage as plans currently available.
···
02/04/2017
Not good enough. What about required coverage for mental health and women's reproductive health?
02/04/2017
Great plan if you make enough money to afford an HSA, not so great if you don't. What about the Medicaid expansion? Nothing said about that. I prefer a single payer system that covers everyone, no questions asked. Remove the health insurance companies from the equation, they have proven it's all about fat CEO salaries, not about their clients. Have a look at HR 676. This is the bill for all Americans!
···
03/25/2017
Read it a few months ago. The ACA is better. Make the fixes to the ACA that will help the American people or get out of politics. Or be voted out in 2018 and 2020!
This bill has a number of great things going for it:
1. The individual and employer mandates, community rating restrictions, the medical loss ratio, and other mandates would be repealed.
2. Obamacare’s essential health benefits requirement would also be eliminated, which would effectively legalize low-cost health insurance plans that had been eliminated because of the mandates.
3. Individuals with pre-existing conditions would have a two-year open-enrollment period in which they can get health insurance coverage. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) rules that protect people with pre-existing conditions from being denied coverage under group health insurance plans would be restored.
4. Health insurance plans for individuals would made be available for purchase across state lines by exempting insurers from “secondary state laws” that prohibit the operation of health insurers in secondary states. If an insurer is licensed to sell health insurance policies in one state, they would be able to offer those policies to residents of any other state. The insurer’s primary state would be responsible for regulating the insurer wherever they operate, although secondary states could inform the primary state of failures to comply with the primary state’s insurance law.
5. Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) would be expanded to allow individuals a tax credit of up to $5,000 per taxpayer for contributions to an HSA. There would be no limit on contributions to an HSA, and everything in excess of $5,000 would still be tax-preferred even if a person chooses not to accept the tax credit. The requirement that participants in an HSA be enrolled in a high deductible healthcare plan would be eliminated. Individuals would be able to use funds from an HSA to pay for insurance premiums, medical expenses, and prescription or over-the-counter drugs.
6. The tax treatment of health insurance plans obtained individually or through an employer would be equalized through a universal deduction on both income and payroll taxes. This would be available regardless of how a person gets their health insurance, and wouldn’t interfere with employer-sponsored plans.
7. Individuals would also be allowed to pool together for the purpose of buying health insurance. Nonprofits (including churches, alumni associations, trade associations, and other civic groups) could also participate in the pools as long as they do not condition membership on any health status-related factor.
All in all, if we MUST have government involved in our healthcare, I don't see anything in this bill that I would object to. And Rand Paul is in a unique position (compared to most legislators) to understand firsthand what kinds of problems people face with their healthcare, their insurance, and their out-of-pocket expenses.
Not good enough. What about required coverage for mental health and women's reproductive health?
Great plan if you make enough money to afford an HSA, not so great if you don't. What about the Medicaid expansion? Nothing said about that. I prefer a single payer system that covers everyone, no questions asked. Remove the health insurance companies from the equation, they have proven it's all about fat CEO salaries, not about their clients. Have a look at HR 676. This is the bill for all Americans!
Read it a few months ago. The ACA is better. Make the fixes to the ACA that will help the American people or get out of politics. Or be voted out in 2018 and 2020!
Half hearted attempt. Universal single payer only real option.
This is a smoke screen to have access protection for 2 years but does not protect you from insurance companies raising rates to force you out. Then has no protection if you change plans. This does little to protect people long term when insurance policies will use loop holes around it. This is a Swiss cheese solution.
Until a plan to actually fix Obamacare surfaces, don't vote for any of these watered-down versions. Remember: the ACA was amazing until the GOP blocked key elements, making it vulnerable to big pharma greed and heartlessness. Let's be honest: the only acceptable replacement for Obamacare is going to be a single-payer system. I hold you accountable to not only block these pathetic GOP attempts to line their and their cronies' pockets with money, but to push for REAL healthcare reform. Everything else proposed just treats the symptom, not the cause,and surely any doctor would agree that's a bad practice.
I want every Congressman and Senator to have the same health insurance they think we should have
This is piecemeal and nowhere near the comprehensive nature of ACA. A tax deduction scheme does not help folks who have not much taxes to deduct because of their low Income status. To benefit from health savings accounts you would have to be in an income bracket that allowed you to be able to have savings in the first place, and a serious illness would wipe those savings away with one hospitalization and leave one medically indigent. The bill is silent on the Medicaid Expansion that took place as part of ACA. There are no healthcare costs reduction provisions and the bill is silent about those in the ACA as it currently stands. There is no analysis for how many more or how many fewer Americans would have health coverage under this plan. We deserve far better. This is repeal with laughable replace.
There are some excellent reforms in this act that do not exist now on the current system. Especially the part dealing with pre-existing conditions.
If you're going to allow a 2 year widow for people with pre-existing conditions you better have a 2 year plan to eradicate disease to complement
Work for a single payer system. Health care should not be profit driven.
It's time to begin replacing Obamacare. It is simply too costly and did not do what it promised. My favorite part of this bill is opening up the state lines to allow COMPETITION of insurance companies to offer better plans at lower costs. The health savings accounts is a nice option for people as well and an open enrollment period of 2 years for people with pre-existing conditions doesn't leave them high and dry and unable to find coverage. Like Rand Paul says, it's time to get the Federal governments hands out of healthcare and let the private markets do their thing again! More Liberty is always a good thing!
Normally, I see Sen Rand Paul views as his father's views. Nevertheless, I like Rand's proposal as a starting point for the dismantling of the ACA. The Constitution doesn't mention health care, but the ACA/ObamaCare has created addict to their subsidized HC premiums like opiate abusers. These individuals have to be placed into a addiction recovery program. Rand's proposal appears as a excellent start. Incidentally, much of the complaining appears to the recipients of free/subsidized HC who feel taxpayers should continue paying for their policy. Our Founding Fathers said: …"promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." No mention of "free" in the Constitution that I can find. Remember, under Socialism, free belongs to the Administration, not to taxpayer. However, let's think of Rand's proposal as being first base in rounding the bases to home plate where Government is removed from our health care and out of our pocket book. My rights to liberty doesn't mean your rights to spend my money for your healthcare or any other supportive service, such as heating oil, housing, telephones or internet access.
The ability to obtain basic health care services (e.g. Dental, eyeglasses, treatment for chronic illness, etc) must be viewed as a fundamental human right. How much money is human suffering worth to you and the ultra wealthy in America? Aside from the suffering and lost years of life, there are profound negative economic consequences arising from productivity losses. In the absence of regulated health care access the working poor and uninsured will take their acute medical needs to emergency rooms, with high cost passed on to all of us. This is not only profoundly stupid from an economic perspective, it is fundamentally immoral. Please conduct a cost benefit analysis of all possible options and do not allow ideology to decide the outcome that will affect us all.
ACA works in many ways. Where there are issues work to fix it. This replacement removes too many important pieces of the ACA. Vote to fix, not repeal and replace.
There’s no doubt that Obamacare is imperfect and could use reforms, but this bill would overturn too many of the consumer protections that the Affordable Care Act put in place. Insurance plans offered under this proposal wouldn’t offer as robust of coverage as plans currently available.
Single Payer is the only way to go. That is, if our elected officials are providing for their constituents and not corporate interests.
If you allow people to purchase insurance from across state lines, you open open up free trade in the insurance industry, which would lower costs and benefit the masses. Also the people I have read on hear against repeal and replace are being either racist or sexist. I am more concerned about my wallet than that stuff smh
My 14 year old daughter has a rare and little understood autoimmune condition. Coverage for the treatment she needs (and NOT the most cost efficient) under this new plan would become prohibitive for several reasons. Sure premiums might come down due to insurance providers being able to sell across state lines, but the substantive coverage would be based on the loose regulations that insurer's primary state would set. Given the complex nature of treatment in my daughters case, such a policy would in effect cost more over the long term (lower premiums = less coverage). The alternative would be to go with an insurance company that would be based in a primary state that has better state regulation, and you cannot tell me that such insurance companies (if any of them would base themselves in such a state) wouldn't pass the cost of doing business on to the consumer (i.e. much higher premiums for better coverage). Also, what's with the two year window for signing up for a plan with preexisting conditions? Does that mean that I'd be locked into that plan for a prolonged period of time where if I chose to switch after the two year period, coverage for said condition would disappear? And don't get me started on how this bill would lay the groundwork for "high risk" pools. When all is said and done, you can't put a silk hat on a pig, and this porker looks an awful lot like health insurance regulation did back before the ACA. In essence (and this is also true about the ACA but to a slightly lesser degree), the real problem isn't being addressed at all, namely that under such regulation, private health insurance companies become the arbiter of what kind of medical help you can afford rather than what you NEED. In short, it puts fiscal efficiency before one's health needs and it keeps insurance companies from being held accountable for their fiscally efficient choices and how said choices affect one's health. I and my daughter's doctors already have enough problems arguing with my insurance provider about what's appropriate treatment or not. This scheme will do nothing but make it harder for my daughter to get the treatment she NEEDS vs what someone in a corporate office thinks is thrifty but functional. Vote NO and apply as much pressure as possible on law makers to vote likewise.