Who is forced to pay more for less under TrumpCare? Everyone. While Republicans jammed their harmful TrumpCare bill though the House without an updated CBO score and without holding a single hearing, every American, including those with employer-based coverage, would be harmed by the consequences of the legislation:
"About half of all Americans get health coverage through work. The bill would make it easier for employers to increase the amount that employees could be asked to pay in premiums, or to stop offering coverage entirely. It also has the potential to weaken rules against capping worker’s benefits or limiting how much employees can be asked to pay in deductibles or co-payments.”
“Employers who do not offer insurance to their full-time workers would no longer be fined.”
“Employers would also be freed from penalties if their insurance did not meet a certain affordability standard for their workers; that could mean charging workers a larger share of insurance premiums.”
“Many people who obtain health insurance through their employers—about half of the country—could be at risk of losing protections that limit out-of-pocket costs for catastrophic illnesses, due to a little-noticed provision of the House Republican health-care bill, health-policy experts say.”
“The provision, part of a last-minute amendment, lets states obtain waivers from certain Affordable Care Act insurance regulations. Insurers in states that obtain the waivers could be freed from a regulation mandating that they cover 10 particular types of health services, among them maternity care, prescription drugs, mental health treatment and hospitalization.”
“That could also affect plans offered by large employers, health analysts said.”
“Under the House bill, large employers could choose the benefit requirements from any state—including those that are allowed to lower their benchmarks under a waiver, health analysts said. By choosing a waiver state, employers looking to lower their costs could impose lifetime limits and eliminate the out-of-pocket cost cap from their plans under the GOP legislation.”
“A company wouldn’t have to do business in a state to choose that state’s benefits level, analysts said. The company could just choose a state to match no matter where it is based.”
Days after House Republicans voted to strip away health care from more than 24 million hard-working Americans, Trumpcare’s biggest proponents appeared on multiple Sunday shows yesterday – to defend the bill by blatantly lying about what it does.
Twenty-four million more Americans would be uninsured by 2026 under the House Republican health care bill than under Obamacare, including 14 million by next year, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said.
The Trump administration offers an appealing vision of what health care could look like in the United States, a future where everyone has robust insurance coverage at a low price. But American Health Care Act does not deliver on that vision. And if it passes, and its big cuts to Obamacare’s coverage expansion go into effect, Trump and Price will be forced to confront that reality.
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan on ABC’s This Week:
“This is a rescue mission to make sure that we can achieve the goals we all want, which is getting the cost of coverage down, and making sure that everyone has access to affordable healthcare, especially including people with pre-existing conditions. That is what our bill does.”
[AHCA] would allow for people with pre-existing conditions to be charged more per year for their insurance coverage – possibly to the tune of thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars more per year, some studies have found.
Yesterday, House Republicans passed a Trumpcare bill that would mean higher costs and less coverage for American families. Now, while the Senate figures out what to do with the dumpster fire they’ve just been handed, Americans are speaking out in op-eds across the country about the potential impacts of Trumpcare on their lives and the lives of others:
“With his yes vote on Thursday, my representative, Steve Chabot, told me I mattered less than his healthy constituents because I happen to have been paralyzed at birth. As a 26-year-old young adult, I have only recently aged out of limits to remain on my parents' health insurance plan. Ahead of me is a lifetime of doctor appointments, tests, medications, procedures, and surgeries. That is to say nothing, also, of the future costs of medical equipment I need to sustain a high quality of life. I wonder if Mr. Chabot could look me in the eyes and tell me that I deserve to pay higher premiums because of my disability?” – Neil Kelly, a Symmes Township resident
“I would not wish what my family has endured on anyone, even the legislators who voted to take away the protection that gave us such relief. I don’t really care about theory, about which is the more efficient way to rein in costs, or to give families the most choices. To me, preserving the principle that people should not be punished for a fate they could not control seems fundamental. At the end of the day, this is not about ideology. It’s about humanity.” – Susan Chira, senior correspondent and editor on gender issues for The New York Times
“Many rape survivors cannot pay the significant expenses incurred in the aftermath. They need assistance without being forced to pay a premium for their trauma and denied coverage altogether. Lawmakers have a responsibility to reject bills that inappropriately rely on our status as survivors to diminish our worth. Our suffering cannot be reduced to a ‘preexisting condition’ that allows insurers to turn us away at will.” – Carly Mee, a staff attorney at SurvJustice
“If Republicans really want cheaper insurance policies to equal quality care, then they need to guarantee coverage, and make that affordable by reining in health care profits. Because getting cheaper insurance at the expense of endangering one’s life is not a health care bargain.” – Theresa Brown, a hospice nurse
Trumpcare “sets the clock running on a return to the days when the poorest Americans chose between health care and shelter or food, to the times when people without coverage faced bankruptcy or other financial ruin if they or their family members got sick. That’s not just sloppy — it’s incredibly irresponsible.” – Stephen Henderson, editorial page editor of The Detroit Free Press
“House Republicans, eager to upend the Affordable Care Act (ACA), have passed a bill that independent arbiters such as the Congressional Budget Office say would increase the number of uninsured by millions, cut Medicaid by $800 billion, and raise premiums and deductibles — especially for those with preexisting conditions. But if this legislation, in its current form, is eventually enacted, the fallout won’t come immediately or all at once. It’s likely to take place over the course of several years, in a sequence of events affecting tens of millions of people.” – Jacob Leibenluft, a senior adviser at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
“To be clear, this bill does nothing to improve the health of Americans. Nor does it reduce the staggering cost of health care, or lessen its inexorable rise. The likelihood is that the overall health of our citizens will get worse, especially among those who cannot afford the full coverage they have today, including a large proportion of Trump voters. All the bill accomplishes is to shift the burden of paying for health care from the wealthy and healthy to middle class and unhealthy citizens.” – Bill George, Senior Fellow, Harvard Business School and Former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Medtronic, Inc.
“Two days before the Kentucky Derby, House Republicans hit the trifecta: They used an undemocratic process to pass a healthcare bill that’s awful on the merits and can only hurt them politically… Trumpcare would quite simply be a humanitarian nightmare, resulting in untold avoidable death and suffering for no good reason. At least it’s now obvious — though it should have been obvious long ago — that Trump is not a compassionate populist and that Ryan is not a policy wonk.” – Scott Lemieux, an instructor of political science at SUNY Albany
Yesterday, while considering H.R. 1313, the Preserving Employer Wellness Act, Committee Republicans voted against privacy protections for the health information workers and their children. Rep. Joe Courtney (CT-02) offered an amendment to protect the information obtained through wellness programs from being sold for profit. Rep. Jared Polis (CO-02) also offered an amendment requiring employers to notify workers if information obtained through a wellness program was sold. Republicans opposed both amendments.
Committee Democrats were united in their opposition to H.R. 1313 which would force the disclosure of sensitive information protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). H.R. 1313 goes against existing privacy and civil rights protections, and it would have the effect of coercing employees to turn over ADA or GINA information – including their family’s genetic information – as part of a wellness program. H.R. 1313 would also essentially permit coercion to provide the genetic information of spouses and children as part of a workplace wellness program, despite the fact that GINA expressly protects compelling or requiring such information.